By Once again nothing really serious this month with mostly more of the same old fraud and assault cases being handled by both the Korean and USFK legal systems. There was yet another DUI making it 24 DUI’s in 21 months. Below are the complete court martial results:
USFK Court-Martial Results for December 2008
At a general court-martial on 16 December 2008, Specialist Jessica L. Stacks, 19th Adjutant General Company (Postal), Special Troops Battalion-Korea, Eighth United States Army, was convicted of larceny, and stealing and secreting mail. She was sentenced to reduction to Private E1, forfeiture of $1,365.00 pay per month for six (6) months, confinement for 124 days, and a bad-conduct discharge.
At a general court-martial on 22-23 December 2008, Private Karae D. Jenkins, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 65th Medical Brigade, Eighth United States Army, was convicted of nine specifications of larceny, four specifications of forgery, and being absent without leave. She was sentenced to confinement for eighteen (18) months and a bad-conduct discharge.
Results of ROK Criminal Prosecutions for December 2008
In Seoul Central District Court on 11 December 2008, SGT Lutfullar W. Almos of Headquarters and Headquarters Service Company, Division Special Troops Battalion, was convicted of a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. His adjudged sentence was a 700,000 Won fine.
In Seoul Central District Court on 11 December 2008, PFC Daniel T. Cooper of Headquarters and Headquarters Service Company, Division Special Troops Battalion, was convicted of a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. His adjudged sentence was a 700,000 Won fine.
In Suwon District Court on 12 December 2008, SFC Darlene D. Hall of 532d Military Intelligence Battalion, was convicted of DUI. Her adjudged sentence was a 700,000 Won fine.
In Seoul Central District Court on 17 December 2008, SPC Christopher C. Poles, Jr. of US Army Garrison-Red Cloud, was convicted of fraud and a violation of the Act on Special Credit Financial Business. His adjudged sentence was a 3,000,000 Won fine.
In Seoul Central District Court on 17 December 2008, SGT Melson Begay of United Nations Command Honor Guard Company, was convicted of trespass and destruction of property. His adjudged sentence was a 1,000,000 Won fine.
In Seoul Central District Court on 23 December 2008, SGT Jonathan J. McCarroll of 121st Combat Support Hospital, was convicted of assault. His adjudged sentence was a 500,000 Won fine.
In Uijeongbu District Court on 23 December 2008, PFC Ryan J. Hyde of Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1/15th Field Artillery, was convicted of larceny and traffic law violations. His adjudged sentence was a 4,000,000 Won fine.
In Seoul Central District Court on 23 December 2008, SFC Anthony F. Thomas of 121st Combat Support Hospital, was convicted of traffic law violations. His adjudged sentence was a 700,000 Won fine.
11:27 am on January 18th, 2009 1
I wish we could get the Paul Harvey behind some of these. Stars & Stripes has really tapered off in reporting real news over the past year or so and is more of a Good Neighbor propaganda tool now. Expect rumor intelligence (RUMINT) to fill the gaps.
3:31 pm on January 18th, 2009 2
Mark,
Right on about Stars & Stripes. I used to read it every day.
Even though interesting things are happening in Korea, there is very little interesting news from Korea.
For example, I saw this link under the Lt. Col who was hit by the bus. Did you see this old article about some naked GI getting hit by a taxi?
AB Chttp://rokdrop.com/2007/05/08/naked-usfk-soldier-killed-by-taxi-cab/
Where is Stars & Strips reporting on this?
Also, there are far too many articles about people with black skin praising Obama because he has black skin. Stars & Strips should be promoting the fact that we are all humans, Americans and military members working for a mostly-common goal; even if by different ways.
S&S should show military members' support or disagreement with our president because of his issues and how they will affect the military; and not because his skin color matches.
S&S should not be promoting division, and racism, by categorizing people by skin color. They should not be advertising an "African-American Heritage Association" celebrating Obama any more than they should give front page space to the KKK celebrating the election of David Duke. This is shameful reporting.
Please, Stars & Stripes, give us some news. Give us the full story. Give us the follow up story. Give us less racially divisive stories.
6:05 am on January 23rd, 2009 3
I don't know where to post this so I posted it here.
I am very irritated.
Stars and Stripes is a rag and Franklin Fisher is an idiot. What more can I say. Let me explain why.
"Army expects to save millions by switching to LEDs "
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&am…
Like most "news" I read these days, when the subject is something I am familiar with, I find the basic concept to be far removed from the truth. I can only guess at the accuracy of "news" which reports on things I am ignorant of.
The article on LEDs isn't just full of inaccuracies, EVERY point is inaccurate.
I am now wondering who is fraudulently making some incredible profit ripping off the Army on substandard LED lighting with false promises while giving under-the-table cash to underpaid Stars & Stripes reporters to mislead the public on its benefits.
At the least, Mr. Fisher has lazily echoed dishonest Army talking points without any basic fact checking.
If anybody wants to (intelligently) call me on this, I'll write a long response which refutes and clarifies each point.
3:54 pm on January 23rd, 2009 4
OK, LED man, what's wrong with the article? Stars and Stripes does suck, by the way.
6:55 pm on January 23rd, 2009 5
Here are some examples.
"A four-bulb fluorescent kit with accessories for installation in an office building can cost about $150, for example, Travis said."
Huh? I just replaced a bunch of fluorescent lighting and it was nowhere near $150. I paid $50 for 4-light fixtures including bulbs. Stars & Stripes is supposed to look out for two hundred dollar hammers and five hundred dollar toilet seats and not spin fraud, waste and abuse into some kind of money-saving program. This is not the first time for S&S to promote some wasteful program, though.
"For example, Travis explained, an incandescent bulb burns 100 watts per hour, a fluorescent 32 watts per hour, and an LED 10 watts per hour."
To anybody who didn't sleep through high school science class, watts per hour is a meaningless term and is a glaring indication that both the spokesman and the reporter are ignorant of the subject matter. (Google "watts per hour")
Despite the measurement in nonexistent units, the probable idea is to show the relative power required to produce the same amount of light. Fine for a dumbed-down readership, I suppose. But these numbers are not real-world as they are worst case for incandescent and best case for LEDs. They are more of a sales pitch for LED sellers than research by customers concerned about saving money.
In reality, a T8 fluorescent tube with an electronic ballast is giving about 15% efficiency at 100 watts per lumen. This is almost matched, but not exceeded, by the latest and most expensive LED lighting at 95 watts per lumen. Experimental LEDs up to 160 watts per luman have been made. They are coming soon for consumer use but not until after the Army buys last-year's model at tomorrow's price.
What is happening is the army wants to replace existing, paid-for lighting with very expensive lighting that offers no real energy savings (unless it uses less electricity by producing less light). Any purported savings on bulb replacement costs is nullified by the disproportionate start-up costs of switching to LED lighting.
"A plan to change the way Camp Humphreys lights its offices, streets and homes is expected to save the Army millions of dollars in yearly energy costs, officials said."
LEDs in offices and homes? Maybe. Streets? No. First, existing metal halide and high-pressure sodium are more efficient than LED lighting. Low-pressure sodium is double the efficiency of LED lighting. Second, environmentally speaking, the emission spectrum of LEDs causes much more light pollution than sodium lamps. Not very green there, Army.
"And because LEDs don’t emit carbons or contain mercury, they are "very environmentally friendly," Travis said."
None of the other bulbs "emit carbons" either, dummy. Global warming verbal pollution has now infected the Army. Technically, a current spike will cause an LED to emit "carbons" in the form of smoke. The other bulbs will just stop working.
LEDs may be MORE environmentally friendly but they are not necessarily more friendly. White LEDs don't put out white light but actually use a blue LED to activate a yellowish phosphor. This gives the impression of white light (until you look at a color chart and notice some colors look odd). This high output of blue light, especially when used in large arrays, may exceed the limits of "blue light hazard" and cause eye damage. Google it. I'm willing to bet nobody who made any of the lighting decisions even knows what that is.
The knee-jerk fix will be a requirement to wear Blublockers while working indoors under LED lighting. Wait and see.
Answer the question?
7:45 pm on January 23rd, 2009 6
Blublockers. An old infomercial: asses pitching ugly glasses on Venice Beach. I haven't thought about it for years.
Are spokespeople are not professional spokespeople. If they were, they'd be working for someone else. Much money is to be had in the age of the glibness.
Thanks.
12:51 pm on May 11th, 2010 7
Incandescent light bulbs will soon be phased out because they waste a lot of energy.,,,
12:44 am on October 19th, 2010 8
incandescent light generates high amounts of heat and it not energy efficient:,`