Question for Military personnel about OC

[Tomahawk]

imported post

As long as you're fairly certain you'll never run into this guy in your chain of command somewhere there's no reason not to tell him to get bent. Anonymity is a great thing.

Like the time some bigwig called my avionics work center at Cherry Point and the saltiest Lance Corporal in the shop picked up the phone. This was in the days before caller ID was standard; the phones at the Point were all unsecured and if you dialed the wrong number you had no idea who you weretalking to.

The officer/SNCO/whatever on the other end of the line asked a question in an angry tone of voice which was easily loud enough for us all to hear the tone several feet away, and LCpl Salty said "I don't have a clue. You've got the wrong number, chump."

Well, Angry Voice clearly wasn't happy with that judging by the stream of profanity streaming out of the receiver, which finally wound up with, "DO YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS?"

LCpl Salty: No, do you know this is?

Angry Voice: NO! WHO IS THIS!

LCpl Salty: <click> hangs up phone

We laughed so hard for a half hour we almost threw up.

 

[mpg9999]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

As long as you're fairly certain you'll never run into this guy in your chain of command somewhere there's no reason not to tell him to get bent. Anonymity is a great thing.

Like the time some bigwig called my avionics work center at Cherry Point and the saltiest Lance Corporal in the shop picked up the phone. This was in the days before caller ID was standard; the phones at the Point were all unsecured and if you dialed the wrong number you had no idea who you weretalking to.

The officer/SNCO/whatever on the other end of the line asked a question in an angry tone of voice which was easily loud enough for us all to hear the tone several feet away, and LCpl Salty said "I don't have a clue. You've got the wrong number, chump."

Well, Angry Voice clearly wasn't happy with that judging by the stream of profanity streaming out of the receiver, which finally wound up with, "DO YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS?"

LCpl Salty: No, do you know this is?

Angry Voice: NO! WHO IS THIS!

LCpl Salty: <click> hangs up phone

We laughed so hard for a half hour we almost threw up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CqgnZhb--Q

 

[AEubanks]

imported post

SIGguy229 wrote:

ForeignDude wrote:

"Sir, with all due respect, I will not surrender my identification. Please cite the regulation that empowers you to prohibit lawful conduct by military personnel when off-duty and out of uniform." Polite, but firm.

While I agree with your point about prohibiting lawful conduct...if requested, you must surrender your ID to a senior....that IS a lawful order.

But if the person asking you to surrender your ID doesn't have theirs, how do you know that they are senior? If they can't prove it, then you have no reason to show yours.....

 

[SIGguy229]

imported post

AEubanks wrote:

SIGguy229 wrote:

ForeignDude wrote:

"Sir, with all due respect, I will not surrender my identification. Please cite the regulation that empowers you to prohibit lawful conduct by military personnel when off-duty and out of uniform." Polite, but firm.

While I agree with your point about prohibiting lawful conduct...if requested, you must surrender your ID to a senior....that IS a lawful order.

But if the person asking you to surrender your ID doesn't have theirs, how do you know that they are senior? If they can't prove it, then you have no reason to show yours.....

Yep...

 

[SIGguy229]

imported post

Thus, if you are going to confront another servicemember about something, you better have your ID available and know what you're talking about...otherwise, you end up being "that guy" we talk about on the internet

 

[ChinChin]

imported post

SIGguy229 wrote:

and know what you're talking about...otherwise, you end up being "that guy" we talk about on the internet

NitroVic?

 

[vbnative73]

imported post

ProShooter wrote:

Isn't he as an LTC required to have his ID on him at all times?

That's not just officers. Everyone in the military is required to carry their military ID at all times. Luckily, the supposed LTC didn't have his. Ifthe LTCshowed it or had been in uniform, the LTC would have had the right to insist on seeing his ID. We have to follow orders even w/o probable cause whether we are on or off duty and whether we are on or off base. The only orders we don't have to follow are those that would put us in danger or would have us violate the UCMJ.

Good call though for not showinghim the ID since LTC didn't have his and wasn't in uniform.

 

[SouthernBoy]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

Tomahawk wrote: I understand the concept of chain of command and the 24/7 adherence to military standards. What bothers me is an officer NOT doing what he promised he would do when he took his oath. Of course, we can spread this around to include police and politicians if we are of a mind, but my God... the military???

Well, let's not be naive, here. People in the military are not concerned with the constitution on a daily basis, any more than cops are. Many, if not most, of them have never actually read the Constitution, and they just assume that most orders have some lawful authority behind them. Not following orders gets you into a lot more trouble than forgetting to read the Constitution.

And Lt. Col. Dip@#$%, if he was indeed a Lt. Col., was more concerned with throwing his weight around in the name of "good order and discipline".

BTW, allow me to put my pointy-headed Marine hat on here and say that the proper contraction for the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the USMC is Lt. Col., not LTC, which is what the Army uses. The Marine Corps uses the old school contractions and never switched to the all-caps 3-letter ranks the Army uses. [takes off pointy-headed hat]

Not naivete at all. I know what you have written is generally the case. But there are many military personnel who do take their oath seriously. I've spoken to a number of them about this very thing. Still, I do suspect the majority do exactly as you have described.

 

[paramedic70002]

imported post

vbnative73 wrote:

ProShooter wrote:

Isn't he as an LTC required to have his ID on him at all times?

That's not just officers. Everyone in the military is required to carry their military ID at all times. Luckily, the supposed LTC didn't have his. Ifthe LTCshowed it or had been in uniform, the LTC would have had the right to insist on seeing his ID. We have to follow orders even w/o probable cause whether we are on or off duty and whether we are on or off base. The only orders we don't have to follow are those that would put us in danger or would have us violate the UCMJ.

Attack?

 

[vt800c]

imported post

Look at the brighter side: Suppose this guy was what he said he was. Say went to his office and wanted to press the issue. He tells his staff to contact 'someone' in authority and begins to start paperwork. Once it gets to legal and the lawyers get ahold of it, they'll see that he acted in an improper manner. And as a commissioned officer he should have known better and will be held accountable for his actions. (Nevermind that he would be admitting he was in violation of the UCMJ by NOT having proper identification with him. If I remember, it was required...I still carry mine as a retiree wherever I go!) You can bet that if it didn't cost him rank, it really WASN'T a good career move. Also you can bet that word quickly would get aroundhis staff about what an incompitent he was.

I think the Marine handled it better than I would have. Kudos!

 

[wylde007]

imported post

mpg9999 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CqgnZhb--Q

Wasn't that also a bit from the movie "Slackers"?

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

mpg9999 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CqgnZhb--Q

Wasn't that also a bit from the movie "Slackers"?

It's an old joke, been dramatized in several forms.

 

[Mtam]

imported post

Good for you for being that polite! :dude:



This X Seabee would have told the "supposed" LTC to piss off and a few more choice words. Of course after he "proved" he was an LTC I would have changed my choice of words. Can't get busted if you didn know he was an officer. I know.. I got away with it while I was active!!



"And as a commissioned officer he should have known better and will be held accountable for his actions"



Yeah just like all the O's at Gitmo :banghead:

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Mtam wrote:

Good for you for being that polite! :dude:



This X Seabee would have told the "supposed" LTC to piss off and a few more choice words. Of course after he "proved" he was an LTC I would have changed my choice of words. Can't get busted if you didn know he was an officer. I know.. I got away with it while I was active!!



"And as a commissioned officer he should have known better and will be held accountable for his actions"



Yeah just like all the O's at Gitmo :banghead:

Welcome Mtam no rank here - everybody's equal, just some a little more so. :lol:

Thanks for your service.

Yata hey

 

[ainfantry7]

imported post

Active Army here...Yes it's happened, seems like the higher up pogues are always out to correct someone on or off post...Like someone said earlier, I informed my chain of command, and nothing ever happened about it. 1SG said f'em and "Son, it's Alaska, carry a gun if you want to..."

 

[Crash7795]

imported post

ForeignDude wrote:

Now, if you were carrying openly WHILE IN UNIFORM, that is a different matter. While you have the individual right to carry openly, wearing the uniform reflects on the Service, and so your conduct is thereby regulated even when "off-duty".

No drinking alcohol while in uniform...

Not being allowed to OC in uniform has nothing to do with reflection on the service. It's actually unauthorized uniform apparel, and you are therefore out of uniform. I've had to have similar conversations with my Sailors.

As for the no drinking in uniform...you are mistaken. I won't even ask for a cite, because you can't provide one. It's a non-issue. However, your behavior while drinking in uniform is indeed an issue.

 

[blt38]

imported post

Durell, as you may be able to tell by my handle, I am a retired Marine. The LtCol was out of line, but you handled it well. You are well within your Constitutional rights to carry. He clearly does not understand Commonwealth law and you "educated" him to the best of your ability without becoming disrespectful (yes Art. 89 of the UCMJ would still apply). Well done Marine! SF blt38 (PS. Thank you for serving in the Corps)

 

[CheeseHead]

imported post

****************Now, if you were carrying openly WHILE IN UNIFORM, that is a different matter. While you have the individual right to carry openly, wearing the uniform reflects on the Service, and so your conduct is thereby regulated even when "off-duty". No drinking alcohol while in uniform; no protesting while in uniform; no endorsement of private organizations while in uniform; etc.************


First - great job Marine!! and thanks for your service!!

Second - This "LtCol needs to pull his head out of his A$$ He is way out of line.

I'm an Army COL, who has CC'ed for ~15 years and now that I'm in VA have started OC'ing. I haveeven been considering throwing my paddle holster over the belt and pulling up my uniform blouse over my SIG when I'm shopping on the way home from work (so I disagree w/ ForeignDude here). IMHO the unit/CD

R has no right to regulate your/my behavior off post. I also HATE being unarmed while at work, especially when I see the 'minimum wage' security guard watching the doors at the building I work in. eessh!!

Bottom line – your behavior, while off post, if it is in keeping with state, county and local laws is your business. The LtCol needs to go to school and 'get smart' on the state (country) he lives in. Ooh Rah!!

 

[blt38]

imported post

Maybe unlike the Army, Marines are subject to the UCMJ 24x7. If a NCO, SNCO or officer sees a Marine out of line off duty, they are required to address the problem. However, this does not give the officer the right to question the individual's right to OC while off duty.

I do agree with you that members in uniform should be able to carry on base/post. If service members had been carrying at Ft Hood that asshat would not have killed as many unarmed people as he had.

 

[CheeseHead]

imported post

No, it’s the same in the Army – subject to the UCMJ 24/7, and as a leader you don’t walk by a deficiency. So from that side, the LtCol was correct. But his tone, demeanor and pressure on the Marine after being told he was in the wrong were inappropriate.



And AMEN to the Ft Hood thing. The first thing I thought when I saw/heard about it was, “if there had only been an OC/CCer in the crowd”. And maybe there was, but his/her weapon was back at home because they can’t carry it on post. Crazy! :banghead:



Peace!