Lying, cheating, etc.

[AirAux]

I responded to another post asking for compassion for AFA cadets caught cheating and possibly lying and found I was in the minority.  While this thread is similar, it is enough different to deserve it's own thread.  It also applies to seniors as well as cadets, so, I started it here.  A hypothetical cadet is arrested for commiting a crime.  He spends a week detained in juvenile custody.  He is released with a bracelet monitor until trial, about 2-3 months.  He is given 18 months strict probation with a monthly visit with his probation officer where he undergoes drug/urine testing.  He is eventually released from probation.  The probation officer, as well as the Judge, tell him that he should never say he has been arrested, charged, or found guilty of commiting a crime as he was a juvenile.  His parents know that revealing his past on applications of various types, employment, military, college, scholarships, etc., would be devastating.  Now, the reformed cadet faces a dilema, does he lie and pretend that it didn't happen, as the Justice system has told him to, or does he reveal all and miss out on a lot of opportunities for the rest of his life?  He is a good kid and a good cadet with great potential, but he made a poor decision at 14.  Does he suffer for ever or does he knowingly lie??

[DG]

Does he suffer for ever or does he knowingly lie??

That is 2 questions.

1.  Does he suffer forever?

Answer:  No

2.  Does he knowingly lie?

Answer:  No

[N Harmon]

I think the situation you present has a false dichotomy of suffering forever vs. lying. Having some juvenile adjudication isn't going to haunt someone forever. Or even much into adulthood for that matter.

Integrity is all about doing the right thing especially when doing the wrong thing is easier. It would be easier to lie about it because it is unlikely he will get caught in the lie. But that does not make it the right thing to do.

So, no. This cadet should not knowingly lie. Dishonesty is one of many character flaws that we struggle with as a part of growing up. It's one that is expected to be solved by the time someone enters adulthood. And that is why we have different expectations for a 14 year old CAP cadet, and a 18+ year old USAF Academy cadet.

(DG slipped in before me)

[Eclipse]

Bad example / scenario.

The whole point of the juvenile system is to protect and reform young people so they don't suffer their entire lives.

If a judge says it didn't happen, it didn't happen.  The rest is between him and his deity.

The hard-fast reality in today's connected world, is that it is getting harder and harder to seal criminal matters because there's always a paper trail somewhere.

[AirAux]

DG and N Harmon, the problem is, the cadet will suffer forever for a childhood indiscretion if he does tell the truth.  He will be shut out from many opportunities and jobs that he wouldn't if he lied about the arrests, etc.  His family will suffer in the long run.  The juvenile system is set up for rehabilitation and not punishment.  For him to suffer life long consequences would be unjust and the Justice system realizes that and that is why the records and information is not public.  I agree with Eclipse and feel that perhaps adult standards are beyond the reach of children?? 

[Eclipse]

Don't expect me to walk too far down that road with you, Air.

You don't really say what an "indiscretion" is, but a 14-year old shoplifting a DVD is not the same as a USAFA cadet cheating on a test.

For one thing, they are at least 17, and functionally, if not legally, adults, existing in a situation where integrity and honor are stressed every minute of the day.

The potential real-world implications of an officer willing to cheat on a test are commensurate with the
significant, public ramifications of being caught.  In that case, either you're academically incapable of performing, and therefor honor code should compel you to resign, or you are academically capable, but simply choose the lazy way out, in which case I don't want you leading my son into combat.

A DVD not withstanding, circumstance may dictate that a young person gets involved in situations which spiral out of control, and which were beyond the understanding of a respective age.  That's why we have the juvenile system we have, to correct legitimate mistakes, not shield from humiliation those who know better but do bad things anyway.

No one gets into the USAFA by "accident", and they are there because they want the prestige and training to make them successful military officers.  If, by the time they get to Colorado, they don't understand what that means on a level that they feel cheating is an answer...out you go through the door or out the window, and the chips should fall where they may, both as punishment and example.

[Bobble]

...in which case I don't want you leading my son into combat.

I agree with you, I wouldn't want those individuals to lead my son or anyone else's son into combat.  And just to show you how far the bar has been lowered -

https://www.usna.com/SSLPage.aspx?rss=acad_arch&referrer=sub_academy&pid=8435

She knew about her 'condition', but didn't fess up until she was to be given a routine set of inoculations!?!  And still they kept her!!!  I wonder what our 17 and 18 year olds cadets who are in the process of writing up academy applications think about when they read stuff like this.

What a fine example.  She'll be a wonderful Division Officer someday soon.

[N Harmon]

DG and N Harmon, the problem is, the cadet will suffer forever for a childhood indiscretion if he does tell the truth.

No, he won't. Trust me. A good friend of mine got into some trouble as a teenager that involved drugs and breaking into an abandoned building. When he went to become a police officer he didn't lie about it and explained how he had grown up since then. He was hired.

It also matters what question is being asked. Most jobs I've held, I was asked about felony convictions, not arrests, misdemeanors, or any civil actions (juvenile delinquency is a civil matter...in Michigan at least).

[Майор Хаткевич]

What a fine example.  She'll be a wonderful Division Officer someday soon.

And how does her pregnancy relate to cheating leading to bad officership?

The way I see it, it was probably a "winter break" baby, and well, it happens. Good for her and good for the Navy, not loosing an officer and letting her continue with her career. Babies happen, policy or not.

[davidsinn]

What a fine example.  She'll be a wonderful Division Officer someday soon.

And how does her pregnancy relate to cheating leading to bad officership?

It relates in responsibility. Pregnancy at the USNA is verboten and she wasn't responsible enough to ensure she was within the rules.

[SilverEagle2]

"winter break" baby

Funny term until you are one.

Rules are rules, there for a reason. They should have booted her. Now there is a precedent and all Cadets that get pregnant or get someone pregnant will want the same ruling. A much bigger mess was created by that one ruling.

Typical of the justice system today. Break a rule and then work to avoid the KNOWN consequence rather than accept the punishment.

Shame on you USNA. 

[Bobble]

And how does her pregnancy relate to cheating leading to bad officership?

The way I see it, it was probably a "winter break" baby, and well, it happens. Good for her and good for the Navy, not loosing an officer and letting her continue with her career. Babies happen, policy or not.

I think you may be missing the point.  If you read the entire article, there is a section at the bottom titled "Academy Policy", in which it states that "... Any Midshipman who becomes pregnant, causes the pregnancy of another, or incurs the obligations of parenthood, must report the condition to their Chain of Command."  And apparently, she deliberately did not follow the stated policy.  Based in the timeline extant, in the hopes that she would receive her commission before the pregancy could be noted by her superiors.

Fail.  There is no nice way to phrase it.

Lots of stuff "happens".  It's whether we find it acceptable or not in terms of personal accountability and responsibility that makes all the difference.

[Short Field]

Her waiver was the fourth since 2005.  The other three were men who fathered children.  I am sure there are a lot more "fathers" graduating than reflected by the waivers. 

Besides, she did report it...   I didn't see a time requirment on the reporting requirement or how long she had been pregnant.   She could have taken a year's leave of absence, then came back, taken two tests, and graduated.   The Navy made a good decision.

[SilverEagle2]

She could have taken a year's leave of absence, then came back, taken two tests, and graduated.

Which is what she should have done. That is the price of the infraction.

The Navy made a good decision.

Disagree.

[SilverEagle2]

Back to the topic, if the cadet paid the price for his indiscretion, then it should be forgotten. His debt has been paid.

I would say he should disclose his conviction only if it exists on his permanent record. It is much worse for a potential employer to find it out in a background check than to have it disclosed up front. Most employers barring the high level secret jobs, will understand a childhood conviction and resulting punishment as taken care of.

If however, it will not appear on his adult record, then leaving it off and out of the conversation in my mind is OK. He paid the price and the Judge saw to insure that he was rehabilitated.

Still seems a little gray to me though.

[blackrain]

Her waiver was the fourth since 2005.  The other three were men who fathered children.  I am sure there are a lot more "fathers" graduating than reflected by the waivers. 

Besides, she did report it...   I didn't see a time requirment on the reporting requirement or how long she had been pregnant.   She could have taken a year's leave of absence, then came back, taken two tests, and graduated.   The Navy made a good decision.

I tend to agree.

I'll also bet there are one or two senior officers who wouldn't want someone comparing the birthdays of their children to their time at the academy. If they came down too hard on the subject Midshipman and some reporter finds out someone else 15 or 20 years into their career fathered a child way back during their academy days then that would present a real problem.

[lordmonar]

Well I guess we have to first define what a "lie" is.

In the case of sealed court records.....they legally don't exist and the individual legally does not have to reveil them.  So on a CAP application "have you ever been charged or convicted of a crime" and you answere "No" you are NOT legally lying.

Are you telling an un-truth?  Sure....but it is legally true.

And there is the rub.

And there is a great Character Development Lesson.

"I will not lie, cheat or steal..." is a great motto and moral compass but we live in a real world full of greay areas, legal fictions and other fun situations where telling an un-truth is not only the right thing to do but is sometimes legally required.

Anyone who has held a security clerance know what I am talking about.

[AirAux]

Eclipse, I wasn't leading into anything about the AFA cadets, only to the immediate minor cadet, so I'm not trying to mislead you down a different trail and I appreciate your input.   I think lordmanor is hitting the nail on the head.  We have these strict standards that we are supposed to enforce, but we live in a gray world and it is so open to interpretation.  A medic telling a young soldier that he will be okay when the medic clearly knows he won't is lying (perhaps because he is hoping the soldier will live, but with all of his knowledge knows he won't), but are there shades of gray when it comes to lying and consequences??  We should all strive to do our best not to lie or cheat at all, but can we hold each other to impossible standards?  Is an omission a lie?  I think our hypothetical cadet has been rehabilitated and should be counseled to follow the Judge's instructions with a clear conscious. 

[Ned]

A hypothetical cadet is arrested for commiting a crime.  He spends a week detained in juvenile custody.  He is released with a bracelet monitor until trial, about 2-3 months.  He is given 18 months strict probation with a monthly visit with his probation officer where he undergoes drug/urine testing.  He is eventually released from probation.  The probation officer, as well as the Judge, tell him that he should never say he has been arrested, charged, or found guilty of commiting a crime as he was a juvenile.  His parents know that revealing his past on applications of various types, employment, military, college, scholarships, etc., would be devastating. 

As an occasional participant in the Juvenile Court system over the last  couple of decades or so, I have a few comments:

First, state laws vary widely here, but in California at least, juveniles are not "convicted" of any crimes.  Rather, a civil petition is lodged with the court stating  that the juvenile is, essentially, a delinquent minor in need of court supervision.  If the petition is "sustained", then the minor becomes a ward of the court and the Juvenile Probation crew go to work on her/him.  Since the minor is never convicted of a crime, it can never be a lie to say so.

Second, it is actually pretty difficult to get a minor into pretrial confinement for any length of time.  Over 90% of kids that get arrested are simply released to their parents/guardians by the cops.  Even the great majority of kids lodged into juvenile hall are released directly to parents without being booked.  If for some reason the child has to be lodged in the hall (parents unavailable, danger to the community, etc), the minor has a detention hearing in front of a judical officer within two days.  The presumption is that the kid goes home or released to another relative.  Only in fairly rare cases involving major violent crimes (drive by shootings, etc) are young folks detained pre-trial.

Every child facing delinquency proceedings gets an attorney who works hard to make sure their client is protected and out of custody whenever possible.

Depending on the offense involved, an 18 month probation period with testing is not unusual.  Ankle bracelets are pretty rare, because it is pretty easy for the PO to go to the kid's house or school and they are either there are they are not.  And if they voluntarily violate probation, they might get a few weekends in j-hall to remind them about the rules and to hold them accountable for their actions.

Finally, I know a little about judges, and I am fairly confident that no judge would ever routinely tell minors to lie about their status.  Judges who officially encourage people to lie quickly become ex-judges.

Also, committing a petty juvenile offense is not as rare as you think.  I know lots of folks who have been rehabilitated and gone on to outstanding careers.  Including people with TS clearances.

Everyone understands the difference between a teenager shoplifting a DVD and a teenaged gang member who carjacks.

One is (and should be) devastating, the other is a bit of a yawn.

CAP is not composed of perfect people who have never lied or cheated since the day they were born.  Last time I looked at the NB, I did not see any halos.


Ned Lee
Former Legal Officer

[blackrain]

Well I guess we have to first define what a "lie" is.

In the case of sealed court records.....they legally don't exist and the individual legally does not have to reveil them.  So on a CAP application "have you ever been charged or convicted of a crime" and you answere "No" you are NOT legally lying.

Are you telling an un-truth?  Sure....but it is legally true.

And there is the rub.

And there is a great Character Development Lesson.

"I will not lie, cheat or steal..." is a great motto and moral compass but we live in a real world full of greay areas, legal fictions and other fun situations where telling an un-truth is not only the right thing to do but is sometimes legally required.

Anyone who has held a security clerance know what I am talking about.

I seem to recall somewhere on the SF86 was a question that required disclosure of all convictions regardless of whether the record was sealed/expunged or otherwise stricken from the court record with the only exception being Federal drug convictions that had been expunged by a Federal Judge or something to that effect.

I suppose an SF86 can ask pretty much anything when it come to National Security.