HomeNews

News Search

Good Order and Discipline November

A graphic representing a monthly non-judicial punishment, administrative discharge or court-martial convictions of the 90th Missile Wing, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, Oct. 14, 2020. The monthly product is designed to motivate Airmen to avoid similar results and to have good order and discipline. (Air Force graphic by Glenn Robertson)

A graphic representing a monthly non-judicial punishment, administrative discharge or court-martial convictions of the 90th Missile Wing, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, Oct. 14, 2020. The monthly product is designed to motivate Airmen to avoid similar results and to have good order and discipline. (Air Force graphic by Glenn Robertson)

F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE, Wyo. --

The following incidents resulted in nonjudicial punishment, administrative discharge, or court-martial conviction that closed out during the month of November.

***WARNING:  The incidents portrayed below are REAL and reflect actual events.  The names have been redacted to comply with the Privacy Act.  If you value your Air Force career, you will not attempt ANY of the action described below.  IF YOU DO, YOU MAY RECEIVE DISCIPLINE.*** #donttrythisathome

Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15)

An airman first class was stopped at the gate and given a citation for an open container.  The airman had to set the airman’s beverage in the cup holder in order to present identification at the gate. This raised the suspicion of the gate guard who requested the airman pull over and a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer were administered.  The airman failed the sobriety test and blew a breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) of .175%.  The commander determined the airman violated Article 113 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and imposed the following punishment: Reduction to the grade of airman basic; forfeiture of $866.00 pay (suspended); 30 days restriction to base; and a reprimand. #cupholdersareforsoftdrinks #luckytobealive

An airman first class tested positive for COVID-19, was placed on isolation and instructed to remain in their dormitory. The airman was then flagged in a database when his identification was checked while coming back onto base during the time they were supposed to be isolating. The commander determined the airman violated Article 84 and 92 of the UCMJ and imposed the following punishment: Reduction to the grade of airman (suspended); 7 days restriction; and a reprimand. #keeptheCOVIDtoyourself #justfolloworders

A staff sergeant drove through a solid red light and was stopped by a police officer. When the sergeant was pulled over, the officer observed the sergeant had bloodshot eyes and the sergeant mistakenly provided a debit card when asked for their driver’s license. The officer then administered a field sobriety test and the sergeant failed.  The officer then asked for consent to use a breathalyzer, and the sergeant refused.  The sergeant was cited for driving under the influence. Further investigation determined that two junior airmen from the same unit were passengers in the car at the time, and the group had been at a bar for over an hour and a half prior to getting pulled over. The wing commander withheld authority over this action and determined the sergeant violated Articles 92 and 113 of the UCMJ and imposed the following punishment: Reduction to the grade of senior airman (suspended); forfeiture of $1,373.00 pay for two months; 30 days restriction; 30 days extra duty; and a reprimand.  #lotsofbaddecisions #luckytobealive

An airman first class was tested for COVID-19 and placed on isolation (pending results) and instructed to remain in their dormitory. The airman was then flagged in a database coming onto base during the period they were supposed to be isolating. The commander determined the airman violated Article 84 of the UCMJ and imposed the following punishment: Reduction to the grade of airman (suspended); 14 days restriction; and a reprimand. #someonewillbringyouTacoBell #justfolloworders

An airman first class was ordered by leadership to be ready and on standby for duty beginning at 6 a.m. on a certain day. The airman decided to go to a small party in Fort Collins with another airman the night before the shift. Upon return in the early morning hours of the following day, the other airman, who was driving, dozed off and crashed into a barrier near the gate. As a result, it was discovered that the airman had not followed the direction to be rested and prepared to be on standby for duty at 6 a.m. The commander determined the airman violated Article 92 of the UCMJ and imposed the following punishment: Reduction to the grade of airman (suspended); 30 days restriction; and a reprimand. #notready #justfolloworders

Administrative Discharges

*Administrative Discharges resulting from misconduct, including drug abuse, almost always result in a loss of some veteran benefits, specifically education benefits like the GI Bill.*

An airman received 6 letters of reprimand and 4 letters of counseling for various infractions, including the following: failure to complete CDC pre-tests, failure to attend remedial physical training, two on-base traffic citations, making discriminatory comments to another airman, failing to go to their place of duty, failure to report that a fellow airman had been consuming alcohol and driving and sleeping on duty. The airman also received an Article 15 for failing to go to their place of duty. The airman was discharged with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) Service Characterization. #lotsofchances

A staff sergeant was charged with attempted murder by the Laramie County District Attorney’s office after being arrested for allegedly stabbing a domestic partner 28-30 times. The sergeant has been in civilian confinement since the night of the incident, and is awaiting trial. The sergeant was discharged for commission of a serious offense with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) Service Characterization, the most severe administrative discharge characterization available. #nowords

Court Martial Convictions

United States v. Tech. Sgt. Jeremy White

Tech. Sgt. Jeremy White was court-martialed for engaging in four unprofessional relationships with subordinate Airmen, soliciting sexual favors from a subordinate Airman, and engaging in sexual conduct with a married subordinate Airman. Sergeant White engaged in consensual sexual relationships with multiple Airmen in the same flight and lived rent-free for a number of months with another Airman on flight and their spouse. Sergeant White, in accordance with a pre-trial agreement, pled guilty to four specifications of violating Article 92 of the UCMJ for the unprofessional relationships and pled not guilty to violating Articles 93 and 134 of the UCMJ. The summary court-martial officer accepted the guilty plea, found him not guilty of violating Articles 93 and 134, and imposed the following punishment: Reduction to E-5; forfeiture of $550.00 pay; and a reprimand. #heknewbetter #notNCObehavior

*All Military Justice cases are decided individually on their own merits and facts.  There is no formula or table that determines the appropriate findings or action in a specific case. Specific cases are decided by the appropriate commander in that case alone.  The above incidents were what the appropriate commander decided in those cases and do not determine decisions for future similar cases, which could be harsher or more lenient.  I hope every F.E. Warren Airman will read the above incidents, discuss them with fellow Airmen, be good wingmen, and help each other every day to avoid getting their own hashtag.* #goodwingmenhelptheirwingmennotendupinthis