2 Blue Angels grounded for inappropriate relationship

[mike furline]

It's a violation of Navy regs for one thing and prejudicial to good order and dicipline.

When has any relationship, civilian or military, "NOT" been prejudicial to good order and dicipline?


Regards,

[k5083]

So where does having a relationship mean that they aren't the best. They are humans, and people work together sometimes end up in a relationship. I don't see how this reflects on the squadron at all.

"The best" includes best at following the rules, I think. An understandable position.

August

[mustangdriver]

They are fighter pilots, not priests.

[warbird1]

Dating, fraternization, or sexual relations between Officers and Enlisted in any branch of the service is strictly forbidden. This rule is not just a Blue Angels thing, but pertains to all members of the services. Like it or not, that's the way it is, and it's been basically unchanged for the last 200 years. The reason is that it has the potential to adversely affect the Navy by eroding morale, good order, discipline, respect for authority, unit cohesion or mission accomplishment. Favoritism or tainted judgement or decisions doesn't sit well when you might have to send somebody to their death in combat.

I don't see a problem with this decision, and in fact I applaud that they acknowledged it, and corrected it instead of "sweeping it under the rug". They are merely adhering to a standard to which the rest of the military already abides by. The fact that it happened to 2 Blue Angels is not unique other than the publicity it has gotten, due to the high visibility of the Blues.

[T33driver]

These officers/pilots are ambassadors, walking recruiting posters for the US Navy and sign on for the Blue Angel gig knowing that the bar for professional standards is set even higher for them than their fellow officers/pilots in the fleet. Whether any of us agree or disagree with the Blues' professional conduct standards doesn't matter, they are clearly spelled out to team members, strictly enforced and I'm certain these guys understood that. Not judging or trying to preach, just saying they signed on for the program, knew what was expected of them, yet knowingly violated policy and regulations. It's a package deal and the team doesn't just recruit for the "hot pilot", but also the officer that best personifies or projects the Navy's ideal image to the public.

Last edited by T33driver on Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Jack Cook]

They are fighter pilots, not priests.

I hope they come up with a better defense than that

[warbird1]

They are fighter pilots, not priests.

Uuummm, anybody remember Tailhook?

[mustangdriver]

This is two people having a relationship, not abuse. but whatever. I hope that they work everything out.

[Jack Cook]

You clearly never served in the military.
Even on the civilian side how is it ever OK for a superior to have a personal relationship with a subordionate???
I'm a little surprised you're not getting it

[mustangdriver]

I don't mean that I don't understand the problem, but it's not an abuse case either.

[CAPFlyer]

Chris, you're trying to apply civilian law and civilian standards to a Military issue. The UCMJ and the US Civil Penal Code are two wholly different things and see many of the same issues completely different becuase of the different needs that they serve. The UCMJ serves the military with an eye on maintaining a combat ready defense for the nation. Because of this, it is much stricter in its requirements and punishment than the US CPC. Remember that under the UCMJ, one only needs a majority vote from the jury to find guilt, not a unanimous one as in civil criminal court. This is but one of the differences.

As for TailHook, for those who don't remember -

http://www.greatdreams.com/tailhook.htm

Last edited by CAPFlyer on Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[warbird1]

This is two people having a relationship, not abuse. but whatever. I hope that they work everything out.

No offense or disrespect to you Mustangdriver, but since you haven't been in the military, I don't think you understand the magnitude of this. "Fraternization", as it's called, can be a HUGE offense in the military. Depending on the circumstances, the punishment can vary from administrative discipline (letter in personnel file), to time at Fort Leavenworth (prison) to outright dismissal from the military with a dishonorable discharge. In the military "improper relationships/fraternization" is something that is pounded into your head from day one of basic training and onwards. Everybody knows exactly what is expected of them and there is ZERO gray area.

I would be willing to bet that they don't return to the Blue Angel team. Depending on the circumstances, the Naval pilot has the potential to lose his wings!

[CAPFlyer]

Also, I figured for the purpose of this discussion, it be prudent to post the applicable Article which they will be most likely investigated and/or tried under -

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned or warrant officer;

(2) That the accused fraternized on terms of military equality with one or more certain enlisted member(s) in a certain manner;

(3) That the accused then knew the person(s) to be (an) enlisted member(s);

(4) That such fraternization violated the custom of the accused’s service that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted members on terms of military equality; and

(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

[Jack Cook]

Also, I figured for the purpose of this discussion, it be prudent to post the applicable Article which they will be most likely investigated and/or tried under

I've always enjoyed the one regarding dueling

[Django]

I hope it was worth it... and they are deeply in love.

"Mommy, Daddy, tell me again how Granny and Pappy got kicked out of the Blue Angels and the Navy!"