PAWG member "corrupts" Cadet, arrested

[JoeTomasone]

A Mercer County official of the Civil Air Patrol has been charged with corrupting a 15-year-old girl member of the group by offering to buy her a sexually explicit movie and telling her she has a sexually transmitted disease, Hermitage police said.

http://m.sharonherald.com/sharonherald/db_291245/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=9fyyecVO

[LSThiker]

Hmmm, sad either way. 

Also, unfortunate, but I wonder how much more CPPT national will now require?

[Panache]

Hmmm, sad either way. 

Also, unfortunate, but I wonder how much more CPPT national will now require?

If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with.  Allegedly.

[Brad]

Hmmm, sad either way. 

Also, unfortunate, but I wonder how much more CPPT national will now require?

If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with.  Allegedly.

Ditto. These issues are already covered in the current CPPT.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Hmmm, sad either way. 

Also, unfortunate, but I wonder how much more CPPT national will now require?

If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with.  Allegedly.

Ditto. These issues are already covered in the current CPPT.

+1.


If going by facts presented, not assuming this man is a predator, but did in fact meet the cadet outside of CAP business in a local restaurant "because she missed a meeting", that right there was Cringe-worthy based on CPP. Oh, and the fact that he knew info about her sexual activities...as a SM, even if it was the cadet who started the conversation, I would have a need to remove myself from it. I'm 23, and I wouldn't discuss that with my 15 year old sister, and especially with a non relative.

[Private Investigator]

What I found interesting is that he is a Squadron Commander, a Major and was PAO of the year for 2010. So I am guessing he has been around for awhile.

[Майор Хаткевич]

What I found interesting is that he is a Squadron Commander, a Major and was PAO of the year for 2010. So I am guessing he has been around for awhile.

In the "should have known better" club, certainly.

[NIN]

Okay, I hate to be Mr devil's advocate, but let's think about this one for a second. What we have here is a series of allegations printed in the newspaper. Did he actually meet her at the restaurant? unknown. She says he did. Maybe he did not. There are a number of other circumstances and statements in that article which could be entirely untrue.

Think about it, you have someone who decides they didn't get what they thought they should get from the program, and you're the commander. Next thing you know, your Q's of meeting with someone, suggesting pretty unusual things, and offering something. How does he get to refute these charges? Surveillance video to prove he was never at the restaurant? I mean if someone said that I tried to give them a porno movie, how can I refute that?? Without some kind of evidence it says I did not have that, it would be my word against the accuser. And it looks creepy when you're  67 and the accuser is 15. You can follow all the CPP rules you want, but that doesn't mean that somebody can't start making things up.

We had a circumstance in the high school here earlier this year where a female student claimed that another student threatened her with a firearm in the school. they lock the school down and sent in a SWAT team. Rousted the kid out and questioned him for hours.  Come to find out the female student made the whole thing up. Out of whole cloth.

It happens. I would be careful to put that much weight in only one side of the story just yet without corroborating evidence.

[Brad]

Okay, I hate to be Mr devil's advocate, but let's think about this one for a second. What we have here is a series of allegations printed in the newspaper. Did he actually meet her at the restaurant? unknown. She says he did. Maybe he did not. There are a number of other circumstances and statements in that article which could be entirely untrue.

Think about it, you have someone who decides they didn't get what they thought they should get from the program, and you're the commander. Next thing you know, your Q's of meeting with someone, suggesting pretty unusual things, and offering something. How does he get to refute these charges? Surveillance video to prove he was never at the restaurant? I mean if someone said that I tried to give them a porno movie, how can I refute that?? Without some kind of evidence it says I did not have that, it would be my word against the accuser. And it looks creepy when you're  67 and the accuser is 15. You can follow all the CPP rules you want, but that doesn't mean that somebody can't start making things up.

We had a circumstance in the high school here earlier this year where a female student claimed that another student threatened her with a firearm in the school. they lock the school down and sent in a SWAT team. Rousted the kid out and questioned him for hours.  Come to find out the female student made the whole thing up. Out of whole cloth.

It happens. I would be careful to put that much weight in only one side of the story just yet without corroborating evidence.

Glad I'm not the IO on this one, eek!

[RiverAux]

Thats what those crisis communication plans are for....

[Майор Хаткевич]

Agreed. On a number of fronts. What's suspicious is that he was questioned over a month before the arrest. Sounds like investigation and ISP data request time. He also knows a little TMI on the cadet overall.

Okay, I hate to be Mr devil's advocate, but let's think about this one for a second. What we have here is a series of allegations printed in the newspaper. Did he actually meet her at the restaurant? unknown. She says he did. Maybe he did not. There are a number of other circumstances and statements in that article which could be entirely untrue.

Think about it, you have someone who decides they didn't get what they thought they should get from the program, and you're the commander. Next thing you know, your Q's of meeting with someone, suggesting pretty unusual things, and offering something. How does he get to refute these charges? Surveillance video to prove he was never at the restaurant? I mean if someone said that I tried to give them a porno movie, how can I refute that?? Without some kind of evidence it says I did not have that, it would be my word against the accuser. And it looks creepy when you're  67 and the accuser is 15. You can follow all the CPP rules you want, but that doesn't mean that somebody can't start making things up.

We had a circumstance in the high school here earlier this year where a female student claimed that another student threatened her with a firearm in the school. they lock the school down and sent in a SWAT team. Rousted the kid out and questioned him for hours.  Come to find out the female student made the whole thing up. Out of whole cloth.

It happens. I would be careful to put that much weight in only one side of the story just yet without corroborating evidence.

[NIN]

Oh don't get me wrong, I think there might be TMI here,  but spend 39 minutes around cadets and you know pretty quick who's doing what to whom.  Just cuz he knows doesn't necessarily mean he's a creeper. It means he overheard some one bragging. If you know your troops and they trust you,  hard not to overhear things like that.

And crisis communication plan?  How about member protection from false allegations and a trial in the court of public opinion?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Never gonna happen. We put CPP above SMs.

[Johnny Yuma]

Oh don't get me wrong, I think there might be TMI here,  but spend 39 minutes around cadets and you know pretty quick who's doing what to whom.  Just cuz he knows doesn't necessarily mean he's a creeper. It means he overheard some one bragging. If you know your troops and they trust you,  hard not to overhear things like that.

And crisis communication plan?  How about member protection from false allegations and a trial in the court of public opinion?

Several years back I drove a CAP van back from an activity one evening loaded with 2 other Senior members (one of them female) and a bunch of cadets. The entire trip 2 of the female cadets sitting behind me had a very descriptive discussion of the contents of their underwear drawers. And there's always that one female cadet in the wing who knows exactly who's doing what with whom in the cadet world and will tell EVERYONE whether you wanna know or not.

Back in the early 90's I had transferred to the dark side. About a year into my senior member career there was a CPPT complaint lodged against me. Supposedly i'd grabbed and shoved 2 cadets at the same time at a local public activity. I was forbidden from any contact with cadets for about a month while it was investigated by our Wing IG. While i was fully cleared I found out that the 2 cadets who lodged the complaint were coached by older cadets who wanted me and a couple other seniors out of CAP.

Neither the cadets who lodged the false complaint, nor the ones who put them up to it, saw any sanction.

The only way I'd believe this man did this is with corroborating  witnesses and video.

[Ned]

How about member protection from false allegations and a trial in the court of public opinion?

Great question.

Let's start with noting that the only reason that this has become public ("trial in the court of public opinion") is because of a newspaper article based on a press release by local police, who were initially notified by CPS.  All of these procedures are external to CAP, and CAP cannot - and probably should not - affect or interfere with them in any way.  Ultimately the police and courts will process this case like every other allegation of alleged sexual misconduct involving a minor.  Of which, I think we can all agree, there are too many.

In court, the burden will be on the prosecution to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt to an impartial jury selected from the community.  Unless and until each one of the jurors unanimously agree that the defendant is guilty, he is entitled to an acquittal.  That is the presumption of innocence that protects each of us.

As it turns out, within CAP members enjoy substantial protections against false accusations.  First, of course, is that we handle such allegations confidentially.  We do not put out press releases about allegations.  Any investigations are conducted only by trained personnel, and results provided to the responsible commanders and legal officers.  If discipline or termination is recommended, members have substantial due process rights, including hearings and at least two rounds of appeal if termination is recommended.  And of course, it is improper to make a false allegation, and members who do so are subject to discipline and termination.

There a couple of practical problems that can occur in CAP- related cases.  First, although our policy requires confidentiality, people are people and sometimes members and non members gossip and share things that should not be shared.  To a certain extent we can remind members about our rules, but we (obviously) have no control over non members' speech and conduct.  I don't think there is really a fix to that.

Second, it is inherent in the nature of these allegations that -- on occasion -- no amount of investigation will ever be able to establish that the allegations are either true or false.  Sometimes, no matter how thorough or diligent the investigation, we will simply never know for sure.

Lastly, as a guy who presides over a lot of trials involving charges of sexual misconduct, I am well aware of the "arrest on page one; exoneration on page 10" problem.  It happens all the time, and has been happening since newspapers were invented.  I've never seen a good solution that fully restores an accused's reputation in the community.  It's a problem all right.

But not one unique to CAP.  The whole point of CPP is to protect cadets and the seniors who work with them by minimizing situations that might result in abuse (and false accusations thereof.). The new CPP draft reg is in final coordination with the CSAG who are providing additional advice and feedback, similar to what was provided here on CAPTalk.

Ned Lee

[NIN]

Back in the early 90's I had transferred to the dark side. About a year into my senior member career there was a CPPT complaint lodged against me. Supposedly i'd grabbed and shoved 2 cadets at the same time at a local public activity. I was forbidden from any contact with cadets for about a month while it was investigated by our Wing IG. While i was fully cleared I found out that the 2 cadets who lodged the complaint were coached by older cadets who wanted me and a couple other seniors out of CAP.

Neither the cadets who lodged the false complaint, nor the ones who put them up to it, saw any sanction.

The only way I'd believe this man did this is with corroborating  witnesses and video.

I'm with you here, brother.

Back in the mid-aughts, I was the commandant of cadets at an encampment.

There was a senior assigned to the tactical officer staff who was pretty well known for "doing his own thing" and being pretty chummy with the cadets. I kept an eye on him, but there really wasn't anything I could hang my hat on, just "him being him."

Middle of the week, the XO wanders into the headshed quarters about 2245 and says "Hey, NIN, you know there's a coffee klatch going on over in the cadet staff barracks?"

I'm over there in about 14 seconds, walk into the day room to find most of my "squadron and higher" staff smoking and joking.  And this tactical officer guy sitting on the couch awfully close with a female cadet (Spidey Sense says "Huh. Whats up with that?"). I disperse the cadets, sending them off to their bunks and barracks with the admonition that we'll be having a nice discussion the next day.The XO and I do a quick barracks walk thru to make sure nobody else is getting the mid-week lights out blues (strange that after 11pm at night, you find a hot iron in a dark barracks...)

So the next day I gather the cadet staff, and read them (very quietly, mind you) the riot act. Their lights out is now the same as the basic cadet's.  They don't get to keep their MP3 players.  And the squadron & wing staffs are standing Friday Morning Inspection with everybody else.

The tac officer from the night before is outside the room I have this meeting in, and as the cadets leave he is hand picking some of the more distraught (you know, the ones who are pissed that they have to turn their iPod in as contraband for 2 more nights) and telling them "You should write a statement that Lt Col Ninness hazed you in there."

By that evening, the statement writing was in full swing.  At least one of the squadron commanders was claiming I had yelled and sworn at the cadet staff in the meeting.  (anybody who knows me knows that I am fully capable of being that guy, but in this particular instance, I was absolutely not, and in fact, got everybody's attention even more because I was not)  There is nearly open revolt in the cadet staff because that one squadron commander thinks its OK to order flight commanders and flight sergeants to make things up about what went on in that meeting.

When presented with the statements, the encampment commander evaluated all of them and came to the conclusion that: a) I'd had a conversation with the cadet staff the day before; b) that not only did I not violate the Cadet Protection Policy during that discussion, but that I had showed enormous restraint in doing so; and c) someone was being a total tool.

There were three seniors in the room when I spoke to the cadet staff.  The XO (a longtime friend) and another Lt Col (who happened to be checking his email on the ONE public Internet computer we had available to us when I decided to invade that room with the cadet staff).  Both their statements and the statements of other cadets who refused to be led down the primrose path by this other senior member corroborated my version of the meeting, and  proved that absolutely zero "hazing" had occurred. (unless by "hazing" you mean "holding people to a higher standard and requiring them to do something they didn't think they should")

Strangely, while we were going from barracks to barracks for Friday Morning Inspection, the senior member who orchestrated the bogus statements was seen loading up his car with his gear as he "unexpectedly" had to leave encampment early due to an "emergency."

He later was found to be inappropriately involved with not only the female cadet I spotted him near, but others in his unit.

8 years later, he's gone. I'm still here.  Why? Because I believe in the CPP and doing things the right way.  If I hadn't had the forethought to have the XO in that meeting, it may have come out very differently (although I doubt it: there were far more cadets who wrote accurate statements than there were cadets who made things up. The XO and other SM Lt Col's statements as to what they saw were merely icing on the cake).  If you're doing things above board, you *shouldn't* have much to fear.  In a room of 25+ cadets, when 16 or 18 saw things one way, and 4-5 saw it another, its not hard to figure out whats right.

[LSThiker]

If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with.  Allegedly.

I think I was misunderstood.  What I was referring to is the knee-jerk reaction seen plenty of times.  From my experience in the Army, when a person in your Division or Brigade does something, you spend a significant amount of time performing "additional training".  For example, have a soldier get a DUI and you spend the next month or two discussing defensive driving, designated drivers, and alcohol abuse.  Then you get the complaint of diversity.  So you spend the next few months discussing sexual harassment, minority training, etc. 

Over my time in CAP, I have seen commands perform a few knee-jerk reactions.  Something happens and then we spend the next month discussing that accident, collision, etc.

[Panache]

If the allegations are true, "more" CPPT wouldn't have made a difference because he wasn't following the basics of the current CPPT to begin with.  Allegedly.

I think I was misunderstood.  What I was referring to is the knee-jerk reaction seen plenty of times.  From my experience in the Army, when a person in your Division or Brigade does something, you spend a significant amount of time performing "additional training".  For example, have a soldier get a DUI and you spend the next month or two discussing defensive driving, designated drivers, and alcohol abuse.  Then you get the complaint of diversity.  So you spend the next few months discussing sexual harassment, minority training, etc. 

Aaah.  The old "somebody messes up, the entire unit gets punishedretrained" routine.  Yes, I know it well.

I use it plenty of times at my paying job, when one of my staff does something they're not supposed to, I'll spend a significant amount of my time drafting and making sure everybody receives "retraining" or "refreshers" on the indiscretion at hand.  It irks me to no end.  Unfortunately, I have been told by the Powers That Be that they don't want me "targeting" subpar employees because, and I wish I was making them up, it would "ruin their morale and team spirit."  So everybody gets the "retraining".

I call it the Shotgun Protocol.

[LSThiker]

Yup.  Same thing with the formation when a person is late.  Battalion formation is at 1300.  BC wants his soldiers there at 1240.  Company commanders want their soldiers there at 1220.  PL/PSG wants their soldiers there at 1200.  SL wants their soldiers there at 1140.  So all the soldiers stand around for over an 1 hour just because that one person is late.  Although, even with that it always seemed like someone would still show up at 1300.

[MacGruff]

Yup.  Same thing with the formation when a person is late.  Battalion formation is at 1300.  BC wants his soldiers there at 1240.  Company commanders want their soldiers there at 1220.  PL/PSG wants their soldiers there at 1200.  SL wants their soldiers there at 1140.  So all the soldiers stand around for over an 1 hour just because that one person is late.  Although, even with that it always seemed like someone would still show up at 1300.

"Best" story of this kind of thing was told to me by an es-signal man in the Army. His whole Battalion formed up and waited for three hours, only to find out that somewhere in the chain, the date was moved up by one whole day!