Sexual Assault against CAP cadet in Florida by USAFR LTC?

[Майор Хаткевич]

But if I don't have a FB, then any employer will think I DO have one, it's super private, and I'm hiding something...

[Eclipse]

But if I don't have a FB, then any employer will think I DO have one, it's super private, and I'm hiding something...

Wives tale.

[Майор Хаткевич]

But if I don't have a FB, then any employer will think I DO have one, it's super private, and I'm hiding something...

Wives tale.

Nuh uh! The internet said so!

[Eclipse]

Nuh uh! The internet said so!

Bon Jour?

[Nathan]

Actually, there could be some truth to that. These days, the concept of a young person not having a Facebook sort of causes the same reaction as if I were to hear that someone doesn't own a television or watch anything. I don't judge them harshly for it, but people in my generation have to make a decision NOT to use Facebook, since the social media presence is now default. I wouldn't be shocked to believe that as my generation starts to infiltrate the role of employer, we'll see a lot more raised eyebrows when someone doesn't have a Facebook or something similar.

[NIN]

I didn't intend for this to get off on a "Social Media Is Bad, Mmmkay?" tangent.  Bob's position on social media, specifically Facebook, is as well known as RM's position on CAP members. 

My point is that to some extent, you _NEED_ that engagement to know/see what is going on.

How do you know that one of your officers is inappropriately conducting himself on FB?  As I mentioned before, I have seen what appears to be unduly familiar commentary on an officer's photos on FB from cadets, and while I'm pretty sure there is nothing going on in this case (distance) that would be a CPP issue, its still not what I would call "appropriate behavior for an officer" and were I this officer's commander, I would be having a conversation with him about it.

Remember: Adults are expected to avoid even the appearance of impropriety as it pertains to cadet protection.

In my first wing (where I started as  a cadet), CPP was pretty serious.  In the early 1990s, the wing had taken to checking out people to teach Level I and CPP ("certified Level I instructor"), so I went thru the certification process and wound up teaching several Level Is each year (on the order of 6-8) for my group. We did not skimp on the case studies, etc.  Matter of fact, it was a maxim that the CPP section would take much longer than NHQ's time estimate and we planned on it.

When I moved to my 2nd wing, I was a little shocked at how little attention was paid to CPP, and in fact, how the attention paid appeared to be "lip service."

I did not contact the local unit before I moved, and just showed up on a Thursday night in blues.  At the end of that first meeting, the unit commander, a Lt Col, says "Hey, can you give Cadet Smith here a ride home?" 

"Uh, excuse me, sir?"

"Well, you said you live right up on the main road out of town. He lives in that apartment complex that is about a quarter of a mile before yours."

"Yessir, I get that, but what about cadet protection?"

"Oh, its OK with his mom.  She's also a senior member, you know.   I usually give him a ride home because nobody else lives up that way, but since you're up there now, can you give him a ride?"

(this is June of 1998, and I remember it like it was yesterday.  Why? Because I was utterly stunned that someone could have as different an interpretation of the CPP from me as this guy did ... Mind you, I almost never got outside of my first wing, let alone my region, so the idea that "the regulations get interpreted differently in different places" was, to me, utterly foreign!)

I remember thinking "Yeah, in most cases where someone is abusing a kid, the abuser's behavior is usually OK with the parents, right up to the point where they discover their kid is being abused. Then its not OK."

Then I remember thinking "Wait, you're a Lt Col and a squadron commander, and not only do you think this is an OK way to go about things, YOU DO IT YOURSELF!"

I politely refused, citing the Cadet Protection Policy. I know I pissed the guy off, but hey, I'm not going to have the very first thing I do in a new wing be a flagrant flaunting of the regulations and possibly put myself in a compromising situation. Remember: "[...]expected to avoid even the appearance of impropriety[...]"

Some years later, I was the commandant of cadets for an encampment in my old wing, nearly 1000 miles by road from where I lived.  One of the cadet staff was from a wing I had to drive thru on my way to the encampment, and we arranged to pick him up near his home.  Earlier in the day, I picked up one of my TAC Officers in that same wing, and then we picked up the cadet.  Cadet's mom and dad were briefed on the transportation plan, supervision, etc.  Encampment commander was briefed on the travel plan, etc.  We exercised two deep leadership the whole time (my 4 year old son kept the cadet well supervised all the way, too).  (we even took this cadet out of the country, but thats another story! LOL )

At that same encampment, however, one of the other TAC Officers showed up to encampment with a female cadet.  In his car.  Solo.

I find this out a day or so later when the XO mentions to me that he spotted the two of them on the highway enroute to the encampment site (when they passed him), and then later when they arrived onsite (hours after he did).  Time to turn the "Impropriety-o-Meter" up to "1".

During the week, I noticed that during unstructured time, this female cadet could be seen talking to this TAC Officer.  I was under the impression that she was one of the cadets from his unit, so it made sense that they knew each other.  I filed it away as "maybe my radar is turned up too high," but thought maybe I need to have a word with him about encampment behavior.  I'd see them chatting a lunch, standing behind the formation at mail call, outside the DFAC, etc.

Then I discover he's not from her unit. Uhhhhh, wait a minute.  We might have a problem here.  My internal "Impropriety-o-Meter" is now up to a "4".

Midweek, after lights out, all the cadet staff are up in the cadet staff barracks (short version: The next day was the cadet commander's 21st birthday, so they were all going to stay up to midnight and wish the cadet commander happy birthday). I walk into the barracks dayroom and there are about a dozen people jammed in a room that is cramped with six.  Sitting on the couch, hip to hip, are the TAC Officer and female cadet.  Nothing overt, after all, they're in a crowded dayroom with others, but the "appearance of impropriety" knob gets turned up more notches.

Well, before we can pursue a counseling of this individual as it relates to cadet protection and his behavior, events conspired that he left encampment early.   Some months later, it comes out that he was engaged in inappropriate relations with more than one female cadet, this cadet being one of them.  He got hucked out of CAP.

I *knew* that guy was trouble, but being from another wing, I was reluctant to go to full-on accusatory mode based on some initial suppositions.   At first I explained away his behavior as "well, she's from his unit."  By the time I'd had evidence to the contrary, it was much later in the encampment, and then he was gone. In retrospect, however, he was very clearly operating outside the bounds of the published CPP and we should have called him on it _on_the_spot_.   Lesson learned.

[Eclipse]

My point is that to some extent, you _NEED_ that engagement to know/see what is going on.

No one "needs" that engagement - they choose to have it / allow it.

How do you know that one of your officers is inappropriately conducting himself on FB?

That's a circular argument - like the other 99.9999% of "real life" - you find out when you find out.
FB isn't designed nor intented to be the "stupid police".


Granted FB is a handy way to detect stupid, however I can't begin to imagine wasting the calories to be poking aorund people's
mundane updates hoping to catch the occasional uncool thing.  BTDT back in the day, moved on quickly.

People who both do dumb / bad things, and are stupid enough to post them publicly, are not exactly rocket scientists to begin with, so catching them isn't going to require Monk.  Last week on the way from ORD to LAS, some goof in front of me was using his smartiPhone to update his "friends"
about how awesome Vegas would be...while handing the gate agent an old boarding pass...which then meant we all had to stand there waiting
for an already late flight while he dug frantically for a good pass.  Here's a tip, Goober, delete the FB app and download the United app with your board pass on it. 

Or that goof last week who stole the iPad from TSA and then wasn't even smart enough to wipe it and got busted on camera with a locater app. 

In the case we're discussing, there was nothing to indicate an issue on FB, anyway.

[NIN]

In the case we're discussing, there was nothing to indicate an issue on FB, anyway.

Thats true.

And your point is a good one: We're not about to police the local coffee shop, library, mall, etc, so why FB?

I just didn't want this to get off in the weeds as it pertained to FB.  Used to be the joke was "Oh, all the creepers are hanging out on the playground." Well, 30 years later, the "playground" in that meme is now "Facebook." Some people have legit business there (albeit not business you believe should be conducted.. noted), some people are using it as a conduit for access.  A little harder to distinguish.

[Eclipse]

FB, Twitter, whatever - if it makes you happy or makes you money, knock yourself out.

I don't see that ever happening for me.  I have to be aware and knowledgeable of it for various reasons, but that's the end for me.