CAPT Holly Graf gets ‘honorable’ retirement

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is in their explaination
Is it the old boys network, poofs in the pentagon, preference for officers over enlisted, dykes at sea, modern political correctness gone mad, simple nepotism, typical old school navy.....that site its claims its all of them ...

Agreed. Thats their explanation. I don't know their sources so I'm not qualified to comment whether its correct or not. May I ask what is your explanation?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

so how does that work? Its like saying its a capitalist communist martian from venus who is a sunni jewish bhuddist atheist

I'm absolutely convinced that their editors would like to discuss with you about this intepretation...


This "Graf Case" is strange one and I don't have explanation for it. There are several questions which I need reliable answers before I can even dream of explaining this:
- Why it took so long to anyone to take action?
- At my understanding in U.S. military officer/enlistee retires on that rank where he/she last performed satisfactorily. If that is case then why Ms. Graf retires at rank of captain (O-6)?
- Why board of inquiry recommendation of 'general discharge' was dismissed?
- Why whole process took so long?

Agreed. Thats their explanation. I don't know their sources so I'm not qualified to comment whether its correct or not.

It couldn't be correct as it is plainly self contradictory, as for their sources two you used appear very intertwined and both have the same third source which not only goes through the same self contradictory explanations but also takes her own case and as well as doing the selfcontradictory arguements manages to argue that exactly the opposite is the case....ie the navy is a miscogenistic racist unpolitcally correct dinosaur from the dark ages.

May I ask what is your explanation?

she screwed up and was dealt with in the normal manner.





I would say its probably just the way its done and the way its always been done.

Why it took so long to anyone to take action?

Process, it makes a long drawn out affair.

If that is case then why Ms. Graf retires at rank of captain (O-6)?

She was removed from her position, not demoted.

Why board of inquiry recommendation of 'general discharge' was dismissed

Now thats a question.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

she screwed up and was dealt with in the normal manner.


I would say its probably just the way its done and the way its always been done.

Really? From 20 March 2008 to 13 January 2010 she was the commanding officer of the USS Cowpens and before that, from 20 April 2002 to 6 February 2004 she was the commanding officer of USS Winston S. Churchill. Those incidents for which she was finally relieved of command range from 2002 to 2010 and during that time she was also promoted from commander (O-5) to captain (O-6). Grounding a ship, choking a visiting foreign naval officer, insulting your subordinates, using them as "practice targets"... Are you really seriously telling to me that that this is "business as usual"? If so then evidence please.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Process, it makes a long drawn out affair.

If you mean process after relieving her from command then I agree that its possible (check case below). Otherwise, no.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

She was removed from her position, not demoted.

Demotion and determination of retirement rank are not same thing. Retirement rank is (as said before) determined by what was the last rank where person performed satisfactorily. Here is example: Air Force Colonel (O-6) Michael D. Murphy, a lawyer, was forced to retire after it was revealed that when he joined military in 1980's he didn't tell that his law license in Texas was suspended and propably going to be revoked. When he retired he retired in rank where he last performed satisfactorily. In his case that meant day when his license was revoked by Texas authorities. Guess what was his retirement rank (and rank by which he gets pension)? First Lieutenant (O-2). Full story is available here.

I will return to this in morning when I'm awake again. Good night (or day).

Kraznyi.

Are you really seriously telling to me that that this is "business as usual"? If so then evidence please.

Look at the pile of cases in your provided links(OK avoid the real crazy link as people are getting the same treatment because of who they are and who thay are not and what they did and what they didn't and because the people are this that and the other or all three at once while being neither while the other people are this that and the other too )...which means you have already provided all the "business as usual" evidence you could possibly require.

If you mean process after relieving her from command then I agree that its possible (check case below). Otherwise, no.

As I said check out any of the others, or as you "check below" provide one that is even more drawn out and goes on for decades then I must ask how you can possibly say "Otherwise, no" at all?

Demotion and determination of retirement rank are not same thing. Retirement rank is (as said before) determined by what was the last rank where person performed satisfactorily. Here is example:

Look at your examples, he was never able to perform satisfactorily in the job he was assigned as he never fitted the bill so he goes out with the same rank he had when he got the job he couldn't perform, she however was able to perform satisfactorily on every occasion when she wasn't screwing up.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Kraznyi.

Look at the pile of cases in your provided links(OK avoid the real crazy link as people are getting the same treatment because of who they are and who thay are not and what they did and what they didn't and because the people are this that and the other or all three at once while being neither while the other people are this that and the other too )...which means you have already provided all the "business as usual" evidence you could possibly require.

Tribesman, that site's name is MilitaryCorruption.com not reasonsforreliefofcommand.com. It talks about cases which, at least in their opinion, are unjust not every single case of relief of command in United States Armed Forces.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

As I said check out any of the others, or as you "check below" provide one that is even more drawn out and goes on for decades then I must ask how you can possibly say "Otherwise, no" at all?

Look at your examples, he was never able to perform satisfactorily in the job he was assigned as he never fitted the bill so he goes out with the same rank he had when he got the job he couldn't perform,

True.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

she however was able to perform satisfactorily on every occasion when she wasn't screwing up.

So we should be nice and just dismiss every screw up? Choking, violence, insults (one resulting order to write formal apology), running ship a ground... should we dismiss all these and just say that "she was able to perform satisfactorily on every occasion when she wasn't screwing up"? Sorry but I think this is matter where we strongly disagree.

EDIT: Rewrote latter part of response as I somehow managed to miss important part of Tribesman response.

Tribesman, that site's name is MilitaryCorruption.com not reasonsforreliefofcommand.com. It talks about cases which, at least in their opinion, are unjust not every single case of relief of command in United States Armed Forces.

Yes, and they argue about those cases they think are unfair, like..... people being fired for being a woman, people being fired for not being a woman, people not being fired for being a woman and people not being fired for not being a woman.
Like I said two of your links are shared sources and both use a third source(in addition to the two military sources which all three dispute).
I do like MacDonalds take on the child sex one...come on give the chaplain a break, he has a drink problem and had been in afghanistan, he was only jerking off on camera to a supposed 14 year old its not like they had real sex, what is it with these wild dog JAGs? who among us can cast the first stone? what about his poor wife and kids while he is in prison?
nice opinions eh, do you agree with their take on "unjust" cases?

but you seem to miss one difference

I see you picked up on the difference after you wrote your piece, quite a coincidence really as "doctor" was going to be the example I used if you tried to defend his performance as a lawyer.

Tribesman, have you actually read any of those articles I have linked here?

No when someone links to a site like two of those four that I absolutely refuse to read any of it as it may make me laugh too much, instead I prefer to guess at what they say and guess at any links between Keating MacDonald and Syneeda then simply make stuff up about what I think they write as no-one would be posting a link to their writings to prove me wrong
It does raise the question though, did you actually read those links you are posting?
I mean seriously didn't the truther and other conspiracy nut links set the alarms ringing?

Aaaarrggghhhh you edited again.

OK I see your point, which goes all the way back to ....

Now thats a question.

As there are two proceses both of which are correct even though they are different.
The way that was chosen is quicker simpler and final, the other could be drawn out even further, made far more complicated and still be open for a revisit.
Think of it this way, it is just a typical everyday case of "early retirement" like you find anywhere in the public sector(in the private sector it wouldn't even get a mention even though it is just as common).

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

First my apology that I missed this part of your response: "as he never fitted the bill". I reviewed my post but you were fast enough to respond to my flawed response.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes, and they argue about those cases they think are unfair, like..... people being fired for being a woman, people being fired for not being a woman, people not being fired for being a woman and people not being fired for not being a woman.

I have not read most articles by Mr. MacDonald and his colleagues. I have read only that one in first post and with less extensively that one from where that picture is from. Most of information what I have about Ms. Graf is from other sources. I don't agree with all they write I only linked them there as I thought it being best to give people as many sources as possible to let them make their own conclusions.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Like I said two of your links are shared sources and both use a third source(in addition to the two military sources which all three dispute).

I originally posted four links. Did you forget one of them or am I misunderstanding you?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I do like MacDonalds take on the child sex one...come on give the chaplain a break, he has a drink problem and had been in afghanistan, he was only jerking off on camera to a supposed 14 year old its not like they had real sex, what is it with these wild dog JAGs? who among us can cast the first stone? what about his poor wife and kids while he is in prison?
nice opinions eh, do you agree with their take on "unjust" cases?

I'm not familiar with those cases nor have I read those articles so I don't start arguing about them.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I see you picked up on the difference after you wrote your piece, quite a coincidence really as "doctor" was going to be the example I used if you tried to defend his performance as a lawyer.

That part was based on my quite impressively massive misreading of your response.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No when someone links to a site like two of those four that I absolutely refuse to read any of it as it may make me laugh too much, instead I prefer to guess at what they say and guess at any links between Keating MacDonald and Syneeda then simply make stuff up about what I think they write as no-one would be posting a link to their writings to prove me wrong
It does raise the question though, did you actually read those links you are posting?
I mean seriously didn't the truther and other conspiracy nut links set the alarms ringing?

...and that question where you answered here was more directed toward that article about Col. Murphy which I assumed you hadn't read due my misreading of your response. My apologies for that. But about your response... Thank you for your opinion. I personally favour to not comment at all if I don't read articles, in my opinion guessing is not very good way to go in discussion on sources.

That "truther" and "nutter" thing... that would set alarm bells ringing would they be only ones publishing this kind of opinion. However they are not (feel free to Google if you are ready to really read) though they tend to express their opinion in more restrained manner.

EDIT: Tribesman, we should propably figure out somekind responding/editing turn order system...