Thank you for demonstrating the magnitude of that woman’s actions so thoroughly.

To become a drill instructor, company commander, or equivalent in ANY service requires the following:

- You must be at minimum rank of E-5. (Sergeant in the Army or Marine Corps, 2nd Class Petty Officer in the Navy, Staff Sergeant in the Air Force)

- You must be considered career designated, in at least your second enlistment.

- You must volunteer for the position (at least in the USN or USMC, you cannot be ordered to push Boots involuntarily)

- You must pass a special screening for suitability to train incoming recruits

- You must complete a detailed training regimen specifically aimed at an understanding of military rules, regulations, standards of behavior and obedience

There can be no question that the Staff Sergeant knew exactly what rules and regulations she was violating. She was wrong, and deserved more punishment than she is receiving. Oh, she was immoral as well, but that doesn’t matter at all these days, does it?

Outside of the hard violations involved, she became a training liability the moment she took her clothes off; anyone in an instructional position relies on their credibility and ability to gain and hold respect in order to do their job. She destroyed all of that, and instantly became unfit to continue as a DI. Or as a servicemember for that matter.

She was a Guardsman on extended active duty working in an E5 slot, so she wore E5 stripes and got E5 pay.

When they decided to end her extended active duty status she reverted to her actual rank of E4. This is common in the reserves and guard.

In reality this is not even punishment, it is just a slap in the face by ending her tour early. They took no actual legal action.

Maybe her Guard unit will, but that’s another story.

As for the pictures, the point ignored by the media is that as a Training Instructor they became a liability to maintaining her professional respect with her trainees.

What irks me is her acting like it was no big deal and her feigned shock at the actions. She appeared in the spread in full uniform with pictures of recruits in the pictures as well, which has to violate all manner of privacy regulations and I doubt the recruits signed waivers, or USAF Public Affairs approved it.

Another odd aspect is that she is married but the latest round of stories just calls her a Mother of 2. It is a clear attempt to get sympathy.

If you really follow that line of thought you may as well excuse bundy because of Manson. Just kinda shows you how morally bankrupt people have become.

Second article, oh no. The Army no longer has higher ASVAB standards than the other three brances of the Armed Services?

They’re all the same now? Well heck, lets call that scoring “ridiculously low”. You know, it would have gotten you into the Marines, Air Force, or Navy 5 years ago, but not the Army until this year; so it must be a dumbing down of the military.

Jaherer, did you even read those articles? They don’t seem to really defend your arguments that well. I guess you were hoping nobody else would read them either.

Now I think I understand why nobody usually responds to you. It’s not enough of challenge to be fun. And your “points” are irrelevant to the topic at hand most of the time…

Sorry guys, I’ll quit feeding the troll.

Actually,it’s a good thing that such a raging narcissist did something like this. By these actions, such a person has demonstrated that she is not fit to be instilling things like “duty, honor, and country” into young men and women. She did the USAF a favor.

For the Air Force to demote her for this really smacks of chauvinism, and I’m not one to play the Victim Card very often.

Enrique on February 16, 2007 at 10:29 AM

And for you to be playing it now shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The UCMJ applies to both men and women. Let some big Marine pose for Playgirl using parts of his uniform and he’ll get the ax too. As other posters have mentioned, such things have happened before with both men and women, to a consistent outcome: immediate discharge.

Playing the feminist card for this waste of USAF training funds is ridiculous. Showing your genitals to the world isn’t new or liberating; it’s tired–and it’s straight-up illegal in the military.

Here we have a woman that degrades and demeans other women by posing nude in a major publication and yet feels that “They went too far with it.”? BS. She acted in a manner that is unbecoming of a member of the military and that is a punishable offense.

As I was reminding continually while in service, we represent America as long as we serve and any action we take, whether on duty or off, reflects upon the military and upon the USA as a whole. This woman deserves the punishment she receives.

You just don’t do that stuff in a professional military. Especially if you’re a noncom. How did she expect to drill when every troop has already undressed her.

Free Constitution on February 16, 2007 at 2:32 AM

That there I think is the biggest issue. The vast majority of troops (male troops at any rate… and probably a few of the ladies even) probably enjoyed her photos (call it a morale boost :D ) but that point you made at the end is a major concern.

- Making risque poses in your employer’s uniform is a bad idea: expect to be fired. Doing so in military uniform is an especially bad idea: expect to be harshly disciplined. Feigning surprise when the ax comes down simply makes her look like an idiot.

- She’s an NCO in general, and a drill instructor in particular. She’s supposed to set a positive example, not a bad one.

- She’s a representative of all women in the military, and her actions will reflect credit or discredit on more than herself; she’s just reinforced every negative stereotype that men have about female servicemembers.

A trifecta! Ordinarily I’d say that’s an accomplishment and that congratulations are in order, but I’ll refrain in this instance.

This happened in the 80s also with a female that was in the Navy, and I think another one that was in the Army. I don’t know why she thought the result would be different.

As to JaHerer22′s assertion that this is a better thing than the military dropping standards for enlistment, apples and oranges. Whatever the criteria for enlistment, she was already on active duty. In the big picture, she is not much different from the Lt in Washington state that refused to deploy to Iraq. They knew what was expected of them and chose to disobey. That may be fine for working in an office, but in the military, a breakdown of discipline can not be tolerated. In it’s extreme, it can get people killed.

As to lowering the standards for new recruits, it wasn’t so long ago that they were raised. I joined the Army in 1975, almost 2 months after the embassy fell in Saigon. Before taking the ASVAB test, I was asked if I needed someone to read the test to me. The signature line on my enlistment contract had a provision to make a “mark” instead of a signature. This would be an “X” witnessed by two others.

As proud as I am to have served for 22 years, 19 of them in the Navy, and as proud as I am of the caliber of personnel currently on active duty, changing the standards for enlistment do not bother me. Throughout our history we have had warriors that probably couldn’t pass a college entrance exam. I know for a fact that we’ve had convicted criminals serve too.

What I am concerned about is that the training to turn civilians into soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines be tough enough to weed out those that can’t abide by a code of honor once they are in. Not everyone with a high IQ is capable of living a military life. Many degrees don’t make a good leader. And bringing back a draft will NOT make for a better fighting force. Draftees have served very honorably. But the one thing that they have in common at the beginning is that they DO NOT want to serve. Boot camp can change that, but it doesn’t always.

If she wanted to pose nude IN UNIFORM

Limerick on February 16, 2007 at 9:52 AM

?

But really – a skank and a pig? For posing nude? FOR PLAYBOY??? PB is the Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood of adult entertainment.

Now that’s funny.

This is 2007, there’s nothing wrong with a grown woman choosing to take her clothes off for a very popular, widely-read adult magazine. For the Air Force to demote her for this really smacks of chauvinism, and I’m not one to play the Victim Card very often.

I don’t know if you read the other comments before posting, but the issue isn’t so much that she posed, it’s that she posed as an Air Force NCO. As bcre8v,9:41 AM, stated, she could not have made into PB on her own “assests.” it was that she was active military that got her the gig. She had a choice: follow Air Force regs or cash in on PB. She made her choice, and now she is living with the consequences. There are no victims here.

You ever visited MySpace? YouTube? You know what kinda crap people put out there. If the military allowed ANYONE in UNIFORM to perform whatever they wanted you would have a real zoo going on.

I personally don’t and won’t look at ‘girly’ mags. Seen one, seen them all. Repressed? I dunno. My wife still likes me.

I find it far more obscene that numbers of high level federal appointees including former CIA and FBI hot shots have seen fit to print kiss and tell books, or provide info for news reports to feed their HUGE egos and their wallets.

Manhart sold her “uniform” for a few dollars. Big deal. These others sold their souls for more, and nothing is done to them.

Some states have laws that prevent fellons from profiting from their crimes, by taking income generated from books or paid interviews. Unfortunately, I think this type of law is needed for high-level government appointees.

Take the job because you believe in government service, not the option to sell a tell-all book (that no doubt makes the author out to be a hero) later.

Anton, any woman, who takes off her clothes and displays her baby feeders and genetalia for men is indeed a skank. And a pig.

Where are you from? The dark ages? She posed nude for Playboy, she didn’t molest children or expose herself in public.

This is 2007, there’s nothing wrong with a grown woman choosing to take her clothes off for a very popular, widely-read adult magazine. For the Air Force to demote her for this really smacks of chauvinism, and I’m not one to play the Victim Card very often.

But really – a skank and a pig? For posing nude? FOR PLAYBOY??? PB is the Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood of adult entertainment.

Honestly, people, this prudishness does nothing for conservatism except reinforce the stereotype that rightwingers are overly religious, sexually repressed, and ashamed of female sexuality.

She posed for Playboy. It’s none of your business. Grow up.

It’s not about being naked. It’s about disgracing the uniform.

That’s the “little” detail that seems to get left out -the spread starts out with her in uniform. If that is true (I haven’t seen the pictures) she should be dismissed. Immediately.

As someone else mentioned, it seems like this is what she (and Playboy?) wanted. She gets out of the military and gets famous at the same time. Free publicity for her and Playboy. If true, she not only disgraced the uniform, she did it for personal gain.