Cadet Conduct on Social Media?

[Heavy Flying Guy]

So it's obvious that I'm new to CAPtalk, but I have a question. Has anyone else seen a cadet on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc; whose conduct didn't seem appropriate, especially when posting pictures of themselves in uniform? How should this be dealt with?

[lordmonar]

Bring it to the attention of the cadet's (or senior member's) leadership.

[abdsp51]

Why do I feel I know whom he's talking about.

[GroundHawg]

A cadet from a nearby squadron was relieved as cadet commander due to his postings on FB. Screenshots were sent to the wing commander, and within 24 hours he was done. A good lesson for all members to learn is that anything posted on FB/twitter/instagram/snapchat etc.... can and will be used for/against you. 

[tht1gurlflightsarg]

Yes, I have definatly seen that alot. Just be mindful of what you post because yes, it can be used against you and you need to kinda be an example. If you choose to do so, you could bring it up to the person and tell them whats what and all that.

[Nipahoj]

Greetings all,
I know this topic has been stale for a while, but I wanted to add the following:

Nobody should accept a printout or a screenshot of ANY Social Media post or chat as evidence of wrongdoing.  I recently discovered cadets in a unit who installed a FB app (I won't mention its name), but the app allows a user to create a fake conversation, post or tweet among anyone who has friended you (The app can access your friends list).   

You basically select the friend or friends' profiles you want to "participate" in the fake conversation and then type whatever it is you want them to say between two or more of them (profanity, insults included).  You can then screenshot the conversation which appears to be a legitimate post.  A screenshot of the conversation can be used by an unsuspecting superior to punish a completely innocent party who never even typed or took part in the fake conversation.

This is a perfect example of using technology to bully and harm others.  In the age of photoshop and malicious software, a technologically savvy individual needs to be consulted when these allegations occur.

My only suggestion in case like these is to have the accuser show his superior (a Senior preferably), that the conversation was taken from an actual account feed, and the accused should be able to prove the same.  Every accused should have the opportunity to defend himself against any accusation.

Be Watchful.

[Eclipse]

Greetings all,
I know this topic has been stale for a while, but I wanted to add the following:

Nobody should accept a printout or a screenshot of ANY Social Media post or chat as evidence of wrongdoing.  I recently discovered cadets in a unit who installed a FB app (I won't mention its name), but the app allows a user to create a fake conversation, post or tweet among anyone who has friended you (The app can access your friends list).   

Except that it won't generate the >real< traffic to other accounts which are generally the issue.

Are there ways to fake a conversation or other content, of course.

In 99% of the cases, that's not what we are talking about.  A screen shot isn't generally the last and only evidence of
bad behavior, it's what starts the conversation.  There are plenty of other ways to verify whether the traffic is real.

My only suggestion in case like these is to have the accuser show his superior (a Senior preferably), that the conversation was taken from an actual account feed, and the accused should be able to prove the same.  Every accused should have the opportunity to defend himself against any accusation.

A senior member >always< and >only<.  Any time there is an situation involving discipline, abuse, or improper behavior,
the only people who should be involved are senior members and the circle should remain as small as possible.

[Eclipse]

This is a perfect example of using technology to bully and harm others.  In the age of photoshop and malicious software, a technologically savvy individual needs to be consulted when these allegations occur.

"This" isn't a "case" of "anything", since no one here knows the details of the parties or the situation...

...unless you actually do...

...in which case your best course is to disengage and move on, since these things never end well.

[Flying Pig]

This can be an interesting topic.  There are several instances in real life where people have been held accountable for comments made on social media.  Where I am, a nearby agency suspended a deputy for making comments about Ferguson protestors.   Interestingly enough, he was "Friends" with the Undersheriff as well as other deputies who may now be facing discipline for not dealing with it.  Even off duty, supervisors or even your co-workers can be held accountable for your conduct in certain professions.  Is CAP one of those professions?  Could be, if someone wanted to make an issue out of it.  Something I always try to convey to young people

[AirAux]

I witnessed an outstanding Cadet Commander, Spaatz, that lost his shot to the Air Force Academy because he posted on facebook about the old grayhairs at Wing that didn't know their heads from their other ends.  He was actually right, but basically his dreams on the Academy are shot.  Fair, I don't think so, but, it is what it is.  Free Speech ain't always so..

[JeffDG]

I witnessed an outstanding Cadet Commander, Spaatz, that lost his shot to the Air Force Academy because he posted on facebook about the old grayhairs at Wing that didn't know their heads from their other ends.  He was actually right, but basically his dreams on the Academy are shot.  Fair, I don't think so, but, it is what it is.  Free Speech ain't always so..

People misunderstand the right to free speech.  Some think that it means you can say whatever you want without consequences.  They generally learn, eventually, that they are quite mistaken.

[Flying Pig]

I witnessed an outstanding Cadet Commander, Spaatz, that lost his shot to the Air Force Academy because he posted on facebook about the old grayhairs at Wing that didn't know their heads from their other ends.  He was actually right, but basically his dreams on the Academy are shot.  Fair, I don't think so, but, it is what it is.  Free Speech ain't always so..

People misunderstand the right to free speech.  Some think that it means you can say whatever you want without consequences.  They generally learn, eventually, that they are quite mistaken.

Much of it comes from just an overall complete misunderstanding of how it applies to life.  Which, in most cases for the average person on a daily basis... it doesn't. 

[Brit_in_CAP]

I witnessed an outstanding Cadet Commander, Spaatz, that lost his shot to the Air Force Academy because he posted on facebook about the old grayhairs at Wing that didn't know their heads from their other ends.  He was actually right, but basically his dreams on the Academy are shot.  Fair, I don't think so, but, it is what it is.  Free Speech ain't always so..

People misunderstand the right to free speech.  Some think that it means you can say whatever you want without consequences.  They generally learn, eventually, that they are quite mistaken.

+1...there's a CD lesson in there for all cadets, and some Seniors as well...

[Brit_in_CAP]

Returning to the OP's point, always, always bring it to the attention of Senior Member leadership in the unit.

If nothing else it might provide an opportune time for a lesson on good social media practices.

FWIW I've managed to get an external speaker (the IT security manager for a research organization) to give that talk a couple of time - it seems to work better than me doing it.  YMMV.

[Flying Pig]

Funny...... I make a point to always look at the original date of the discussion... now that I have, this is 6 months old and the cadet never responded back 

[Майор Хаткевич]

I witnessed an outstanding Cadet Commander, Spaatz, that lost his shot to the Air Force Academy because he posted on facebook about the old grayhairs at Wing that didn't know their heads from their other ends.  He was actually right, but basically his dreams on the Academy are shot.  Fair, I don't think so, but, it is what it is.  Free Speech ain't always so..

I have to call Bull on this. Very much doubt that alone was the dis-qualifier, or even that reasons were given in such detail.

[AirAux]

Call Bull on it all you want.  The guy that took his Academy offer and threw in the trash was the Kansas Wing Legal Officer and the Academy liaison Officer.  On his own he decided that the Cadet was too immature based upon his social media comments about Wing Staff.  He disclosed this at National Legal College with a straight face.  I was very upset, having had one of my sons attend USAFA and knowing how valuable the experience is.  This cadet was a good kid and would have made a great Air Force Officer after 4 years at the Academy.  They have a way of maturing a young man.  Anyhow, it boiled down to one senior member eliminating one cadet based on his perception of what should and should not be said on social media.  The cadet never even knew he got the appointment as the liaison officer said he just threw it in the waste basket instead of even telling the kid about it or explain why he wasn't going to the Academy.  I thought it was very immature on the part of the senior member.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Call Bull on it all you want.  The guy that took his Academy offer and threw in the trash was the Kansas Wing Legal Officer and the Academy liaison Officer.  On his own he decided that the Cadet was too immature based upon his social media comments about Wing Staff.  He disclosed this at National Legal College with a straight face.  I was very upset, having had one of my sons attend USAFA and knowing how valuable the experience is.  This cadet was a good kid and would have made a great Air Force Officer after 4 years at the Academy.  They have a way of maturing a young man.  Anyhow, it boiled down to one senior member eliminating one cadet based on his perception of what should and should not be said on social media.  The cadet never even knew he got the appointment as the liaison officer said he just threw it in the waste basket instead of even telling the kid about it or explain why he wasn't going to the Academy.  I thought it was very immature on the part of the senior member.

So there we have it. Wasn't the AFA that did it, but an overzealous man-child.

[raivo]

I witnessed an outstanding Cadet Commander, Spaatz, that lost his shot to the Air Force Academy because he posted on facebook about the old grayhairs at Wing that didn't know their heads from their other ends.

The guy that took his Academy offer and threw in the trash was the Kansas Wing Legal Officer and the Academy liaison Officer.  On his own he decided that the Cadet was too immature based upon his social media comments about Wing Staff.  He disclosed this at National Legal College with a straight face.  I was very upset, having had one of my sons attend USAFA and knowing how valuable the experience is.  This cadet was a good kid and would have made a great Air Force Officer after 4 years at the Academy.  They have a way of maturing a young man.  Anyhow, it boiled down to one senior member eliminating one cadet based on his perception of what should and should not be said on social media.  The cadet never even knew he got the appointment as the liaison officer said he just threw it in the waste basket instead of even telling the kid about it or explain why he wasn't going to the Academy.  I thought it was very immature on the part of the senior member.

And in the greatest of ironies, he proved the cadet right.

[PHall]

I witnessed an outstanding Cadet Commander, Spaatz, that lost his shot to the Air Force Academy because he posted on facebook about the old grayhairs at Wing that didn't know their heads from their other ends.

The guy that took his Academy offer and threw in the trash was the Kansas Wing Legal Officer and the Academy liaison Officer.  On his own he decided that the Cadet was too immature based upon his social media comments about Wing Staff.  He disclosed this at National Legal College with a straight face.  I was very upset, having had one of my sons attend USAFA and knowing how valuable the experience is.  This cadet was a good kid and would have made a great Air Force Officer after 4 years at the Academy.  They have a way of maturing a young man.  Anyhow, it boiled down to one senior member eliminating one cadet based on his perception of what should and should not be said on social media.  The cadet never even knew he got the appointment as the liaison officer said he just threw it in the waste basket instead of even telling the kid about it or explain why he wasn't going to the Academy.  I thought it was very immature on the part of the senior member.

And in the greatest of ironies, he proved the cadet right.

I would be contacting the Academy about this Liaison Officer, with the intent of making him a former Liaison Officer.

[Flying Pig]

Sounds like it was more of a "who gets the last laugh" revenge on the part of the Wing Staff member.  The guy ruined some kids life to teach a lesson.  A lesson that could have been handled in a much better, more "adult" way.

How about pull the kid... yes, KID, aside and say "Let me teach you a valuable life lesson son.  Have you ever heard the term "Never bite the hand that feeds you." ?   Follow it up with "Do you know I have the ability to pull your academy nomination?"  Dont think this cadets wouldnt be shaking in his boots.  Instead, he got mad like a kid himself. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sounds like it was more of a "who gets the last laugh" revenge on the part of the Wing Staff member.  The guy ruined some kids life to teach a lesson.  A lesson that could have been handled in a much better, more "adult" way.

How about pull the kid... yes, KID, aside and say "Let me teach you a valuable life lesson son.  Have you ever heard the term "Never bite the hand that feeds you." ?   Follow it up with "Do you know I have the ability to pull your academy nomination?"  Dont think this cadets wouldnt be shaking in his boots.  Instead, he got mad like a kid himself.

Worst part is that the kid never knew...totally defeats any "purpose".

[Flying Pig]

Yeah thats the part that made me mad.  Ill teach you a lesson.... even though you will never know you were taught a lesson.

[Eclipse]

+1, assuming it's true.  It has an apocryphal ring to it that is a little too "on target".

I'd bet a Venti it was puffing by someone trying to make a point.  Probably the better course for all involved
would be the face-to-face mentioned above, however, that might bring with it First Amendment! nonsense
as things things sometimes do.

The other side is that someone charged with using their experience to form an opinion about a candidate
for a coveted resource discovered something which in his opinion showed an attitude inappropriate for the recommendation.
He (purportedly) drew a line of integrity - don't we call out people all the time when they don't?
There are almost certainly 10 other viable candidates with equally impressive resumes who >didn't< call out his superiors in public.

So it was "Jill" instead of "Bill" because they were equally qualified and Bill decided to vent - it goes to decision making and choices.
Far more arbitrary life decisions are made every day, from the weight of your resume paper, to being 1 minute late to an interview
or calling someone the wrong name in a telephone call.

I've personally had a number of applications for staff jobs where the applicants can't even spell the job they are applying
for, their LORs have their names spelled incorrectly, or they have the wrong activity in the application.  Bottom line
if you have to make an "A/B choice".  No detail is too small, or off-handed comment to trivial.  It all counts.

Regardless, for those watching at home, especially you people - HEED THE MESSAGE.

[Flying Pig]

+1, assuming it's true.  It has an apocryphal ring to it that is a little too "on target".
I'd bet a Venti it was puffing by someone trying to make a point.  Probably the better course for all involved
would be the face-to-face mentioned above, however, that might bring with it First Amendment! nonsense
as things things sometimes do.

The other side is that someone charged with using their experience to form an opinion about a candidate
for a coveted resource discovered something which in his opinion showed an attitude inappropriate for the recommendation.
He (purportedly) drew a line of integrity - don't we call out people all the time when they don't?

Regardless, for those watching at home, especially you people - HEED THE MESSAGE.

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment? 

[Eclipse]

+1, assuming it's true.  It has an apocryphal ring to it that is a little too "on target".
I'd bet a Venti it was puffing by someone trying to make a point.  Probably the better course for all involved
would be the face-to-face mentioned above, however, that might bring with it First Amendment! nonsense
as things things sometimes do.

The other side is that someone charged with using their experience to form an opinion about a candidate
for a coveted resource discovered something which in his opinion showed an attitude inappropriate for the recommendation.
He (purportedly) drew a line of integrity - don't we call out people all the time when they don't?

Regardless, for those watching at home, especially you people - HEED THE MESSAGE.

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment?

Did you miss the word "nonsense"?   >I< didn't, just saying but mom might.
It doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean people don't think it does.

That cadet had every right to express his opinion, but the First Amendment doesn't shield one from
consequences of that speech.  That's what a lot of people miss.

[Flying Pig]

+1, assuming it's true.  It has an apocryphal ring to it that is a little too "on target".
I'd bet a Venti it was puffing by someone trying to make a point.  Probably the better course for all involved
would be the face-to-face mentioned above, however, that might bring with it First Amendment! nonsense
as things things sometimes do.

The other side is that someone charged with using their experience to form an opinion about a candidate
for a coveted resource discovered something which in his opinion showed an attitude inappropriate for the recommendation.
He (purportedly) drew a line of integrity - don't we call out people all the time when they don't?

Regardless, for those watching at home, especially you people - HEED THE MESSAGE.

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment?

Did you miss the word "nonsense"?   >I< didn't, just saying but mom might.
It doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean people don't think it does.

That cadet had every right to express his opinion, but the First Amendment doesn't shield one from
consequences of that speech.  That's what a lot of people miss.

Copy..... my misunderstanding .  It threw me off because I know you have been an "explainer" of how the 1A usually applies to the real world and I misread it and thought "huh?"

[JeffDG]

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment?

Did you miss the word "nonsense"?   >I< didn't, just saying but mom might.
It doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean people don't think it does.

That cadet had every right to express his opinion, but the First Amendment doesn't shield one from
consequences of that speech.  That's what a lot of people miss.

I'm as much of a "the first amendment doesn't apply to private interactions" guy as anyone.  CAP is a private entity, and you enjoy no 1st Amendment protections against any consequences from CAP for your speech except those CAP decides to provide you (ie. non-retaliation provisions in the IG regs).

In the cited story, however, the issue with with an Academy Appointment.  That's a citizen-governmental interaction, and that means that the full range of protections under the Bill of Rights applies.  If a person has a federal government benefit (which an Academy appointment is, and it eliminates any analysis of incorporation issues that you need  to deal with on State issues) taken away as a result of speech, such would need be reviewed under a strict-scrutiny standard.  I would find it unlikely that, were such a review undertaken, that the actions cited would stand up to the scrutiny.

[lordmonar]

I don't a whole lot about the academy vetting process.....but I'm pretty sure that that the academy liaisons and just "lose" an application and then that's the end of it.

He may have been speaking figuratively not literally about just tossing the application in the trash.

I would be really worried if an application can just drop off the world like that and then the applicant is done forever.

[AirAux]

All the liaison officer had to do was call the Academy and say the Cadet was no longer interested.  The liaison officer showed us the information from the Cadet's Facebook and it wasn't that bad.  It was the typical grumbling of the cadets about the old gray hairs and how they are not up to date on anything.  This was all brought to our attention the year following the incident.  I feel really bad and stupid for not reporting the liaison officer to the Academy in hindsight.  Having worked to get my son into the Academy and knowing the quality of the youth going to the Academy, I was so mad I could spit.  I chewed his arse at the Converence but he acted like he had done the right thing.

[Flying Pig]

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment?

Did you miss the word "nonsense"?   >I< didn't, just saying but mom might.
It doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean people don't think it does.

That cadet had every right to express his opinion, but the First Amendment doesn't shield one from
consequences of that speech.  That's what a lot of people miss.

I'm as much of a "the first amendment doesn't apply to private interactions" guy as anyone.  CAP is a private entity, and you enjoy no 1st Amendment protections against any consequences from CAP for your speech except those CAP decides to provide you (ie. non-retaliation provisions in the IG regs).

In the cited story, however, the issue with with an Academy Appointment.  That's a citizen-governmental interaction, and that means that the full range of protections under the Bill of Rights applies. If a person has a federal government benefit (which an Academy appointment is, and it eliminates any analysis of incorporation issues that you need  to deal with on State issues) taken away as a result of speech, such would need be reviewed under a strict-scrutiny standard.  I would find it unlikely that, were such a review undertaken, that the actions cited would stand up to the scrutiny.

No, it was an interaction between CAP members.  Based on that interaction, the liaison determined the cadet was not Academy material.  I don't like what happened,  but the cadet was not speaking out against the "government".    No different than if I make a comment on social media about my stupid grey haired squadron commander at CAP....who also happens to be the commander of the LE Air Unit Im trying to get into.    "No thank you, you weren't selected based on maturity issues."  If there would be a leg to stand on in this story, 1A isnt it. 

[JeffDG]

No, it was an interaction between CAP members.  Based on that interaction, the liaison determined the cadet was not Academy material.  I don't like what happened,  but the cadet was not speaking out against the "government".    No different than if I make a comment on social media about my stupid grey haired squadron commander at CAP....who also happens to be the commander of the LE Air Unit Im trying to get into.    "No thank you, you weren't selected based on maturity issues."  If there would be a leg to stand on in this story, 1A isnt it.

It was an interaction between CAP members, but in deciding to circle-file the appointment, he was acting as an agent of the federal government, and as a result, his actions could well be reviewed on first amendment grounds.  CAP as an organization doesn't decide who goes to the Academy, so the fact that he was a CAP member was coincidental.  Circle-filing the application was not within the scope of his CAP duty in any way.

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

[Eclipse]

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

Nuance, yes, but doesn't really change anything - "Free Speech" does not equal "Consequence-Free Speech".

What if he called out POTUS on a legitimate political point and advocated for his impeachment.

At a minimum, the example cited shows a clear lack of awareness of the potential consequences of a given action,
by presumably a senior-level cadet officer / senior in high school.

[JeffDG]

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

Nuance, yes, but doesn't really change anything - "Free Speech" does not equal "Consequence-Free Speech".

It DOES mean that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech.

What if he called out POTUS on a legitimate political point and advocated for his impeachment.

Absolutely 100% protected speech.  Political speech is the raison detre of the 1A and is entitled to even more protection than normal speech.  Advocating for impeachment of a government official is entirely appropriate speech.  Calling for physical harm to come to an official is a different matter.

If an AF Academy appointment were pulled because he said something, he would have a completely legitimate complaint about a 1A violation.

[THRAWN]

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

Nuance, yes, but doesn't really change anything - "Free Speech" does not equal "Consequence-Free Speech".

It DOES mean that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech.

What if he called out POTUS on a legitimate political point and advocated for his impeachment.

Absolutely 100% protected speech.  Political speech is the raison detre of the 1A and is entitled to even more protection than normal speech.  Advocating for impeachment of a government official is entirely appropriate speech. Calling for physical harm to come to an official is a different matter.If an AF Academy appointment were pulled because he said something, he would have a completely legitimate complaint about a 1A violation.

So you mean that you can be punished by the government for your speech. Quit trying to barracks lawyer this. The cadet screwed up. He put both boots in his mouth, and the Academy decided that they didn't want him. They have enough issues without accepting someone into their ranks who has an obvious issue with authority.

[JeffDG]

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

Nuance, yes, but doesn't really change anything - "Free Speech" does not equal "Consequence-Free Speech".

It DOES mean that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech.

What if he called out POTUS on a legitimate political point and advocated for his impeachment.

Absolutely 100% protected speech.  Political speech is the raison detre of the 1A and is entitled to even more protection than normal speech.  Advocating for impeachment of a government official is entirely appropriate speech. Calling for physical harm to come to an official is a different matter.If an AF Academy appointment were pulled because he said something, he would have a completely legitimate complaint about a 1A violation.

So you mean that you can be punished by the government for your speech. Quit trying to barracks lawyer this. The cadet screwed up. He put both boots in his mouth, and the Academy decided that they didn't want him. They have enough issues without accepting someone into their ranks who has an obvious issue with authority.

To be clear, I said that governmental punishment for speech is limited by strict scrutiny, which is a very high bar.

The example, calling for the impeachment of POTUS would not even come close to crossing that bar.  If someone were denied a government benefit for that they would have a very strong 1A case.

[AirAux]

The Academy didn't have anything to do with it.  It was the liaison officer who probably overstepped his bounds.  The Academy had decided to accept the Cadet.  The liaison officer, coincidently also the CAP Wing Legal officer, decided he didn't think the Cadet should go to the Academy.  I don't think the Academy delegated that authority to him. 

[Eclipse]

The Academy didn't have anything to do with it.  It was the liaison officer who probably overstepped his bounds.  The Academy had decided to accept the Cadet.  The liaison officer, coincidently also the CAP Wing Legal officer, decided he didn't think the Cadet should go to the Academy.  I don't think the Academy delegated that authority to him.

How does the Academy accept someone and then just "not"?

Those two things in bold do not go together.

[Ned]

Plus there is an elected official out there somewhere (most often a Representative or a Senator) who had apparently had their nomination overruled/ cancelled by some CAP guy.   It seems a little far-fetched that neither the Academy nor the elected official would have reached out to the cadet for confirmation.

Where is Snopes when you need him?

[AirAux]

Ned as one CAP Legal Officer to another, this is what happened.  All the liaison officer has to do is pick up the phone and call the elected official and tha Academy and say the Cadet is not interested anymore.  It does happen.  My son got selected for both the Academy and West Point.  He didn't go to West Point.  There was no congressional investigation about why?? 

[Eclipse]

There's a difference between self-selecting and being "unselected".

The problem here is the only verification of the story is from the teller - just because he can point to a cadet's inappropriate
FB post, even one who applied and didn't get into the USAFA, doesn't mean he was blocked because of it.

The JA might even >believe< he had influence in the matter.

So you're saying the cadet was accepted, but never notified, and "unaccepted" all in the background and he never knew the wiser?

If so, as I said, I might even agree with the action, but doing it in secret is kind of a (self-filtered) move and defeats the purpose.
I'd even say that while mentally deliberating the issue was fair game, but undoing a decision already made is juvenile, especially at this level.
I agree it smacks of "getting even", but with who?

Besides, if there is one joy left to the ever-beleaguered (many times deservedly so) wing staff it's calling people on the carpet for saying dumb thing publicly.

[Ned]

Ned as one CAP Legal Officer to another, this is what happened.  All the liaison officer has to do is pick up the phone and call the elected official and tha Academy and say the Cadet is not interested anymore.  It does happen.  My son got selected for both the Academy and West Point.  He didn't go to West Point.  There was no congressional investigation about why??

Sir,

Reading back I can see that it might appear that I was doubting your version of events.  That is certainly not the case, and I apologize for giving that appearance.  Your word is good here.

Rather, as a guy who has to sort out unusual stories for a living, my concern is upstream from your observations.  I think Bob has correctly pointed out that all we know about this is what the admittedly shady character told you.  None of us know that guy, and he may or may not be creditable.  Indeed, if he did what he said he did for the reasons he said he did it, he doesn't sound like the kind of guy whose word I would take at face value.

And there are the usual semantic difficulties.  It would not be difficult to imagine a situation where one or more of the upstream characters used the word "offer" or "acceptance" when what was really meant was "application."

And in all likelihood, we will simply never know for sure.

But like many stories that may or may not be true, the real value is in the lessons that can be learned regardless of the underlying truth.

Here, I learned that seniors may arbitrarily and seriously damage cadets when they take capricious actions without consultation with other experienced CP officers.  I also learned that cadets act like cadets sometimes.  I suspect that has been true for several thousand years, but it's always worth remembering.

[Johnny Yuma]

AirAux,

I'm familiar with the incident you've referenced, along with many of the players at the time. There is far more to this story and decisions were made based on more than just a cadet making disparaging remarks on Facebook and frankly it reads like a Greek tragedy.

In retrospect, the right call was made. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

AirAux,

I'm familiar with the incident you've referenced, along with many of the players at the time. There is far more to this story and decisions were made based on more than just a cadet making disparaging remarks on Facebook and frankly it reads like a Greek tragedy.

In retrospect, the right call was made.

The right call was between the AFA and the cadet. Anything outside of that is grown children thinking they know best.

[Johnny Yuma]

AirAux,

I'm familiar with the incident you've referenced, along with many of the players at the time. There is far more to this story and decisions were made based on more than just a cadet making disparaging remarks on Facebook and frankly it reads like a Greek tragedy.

In retrospect, the right call was made.

The right call was between the AFA and the cadet. Anything outside of that is grown children thinking they know best.

The ALO IS that representative between the AFA and cadet.

Quoted straight from the ALO website: " identify, recruit, and evaluate those individuals whom the Air Force will train, retain, and commission." (emphasis mine).  If the ALO's evaluation of a prospective cadet changes it appears that it is his job to make it an issue with one's application.

I saw the kid's FB page. I can tell you there was way more to his application being quashed than just bad mouthing Wing Staff on FB. Suffice it to say the kid's lucky he didn't get 2B'd and/or wind up in jail for some of the stunts he pulled in and out of CAP time and the idiot left photo evidence of it all on his FB page! He destroyed his own AFA career himself and to be honest I think it was by design.

[Майор Хаткевич]

AirAux,

I'm familiar with the incident you've referenced, along with many of the players at the time. There is far more to this story and decisions were made based on more than just a cadet making disparaging remarks on Facebook and frankly it reads like a Greek tragedy.

In retrospect, the right call was made.

The right call was between the AFA and the cadet. Anything outside of that is grown children thinking they know best.

The ALO IS that representative between the AFA and cadet.

Quoted straight from the ALO website: " identify, recruit, and evaluate those individuals whom the Air Force will train, retain, and commission." (emphasis mine).  If the ALO's evaluation of a prospective cadet changes it appears that it is his job to make it an issue with one's application.

I saw the kid's FB page. I can tell you there was way more to his application being quashed than just bad mouthing Wing Staff on FB. Suffice it to say the kid's lucky he didn't get 2B'd and/or wind up in jail for some of the stunts he pulled in and out of CAP time and the idiot left photo evidence of it all on his FB page! He destroyed his own AFA career himself and to be honest I think it was by design.

So...the proper steps, with a supposed letter of admission is to then contact AFA, and see their take on it, no? I was a kid, and I wrote dumb stuff on Myspace. I grew out of it.