By What’s New About This Story?
The story about the Army mother who refused to deploy because she could find no one to care for her son has generated much discussion here at the ROK Drop. I have decided to do a little more research into this story because honestly this story smells. I have seen soldiers before have problems with family care plans and either they got them resolved or they were chaptered from the military. I have never seen or even heard of anyone going to jail for not having a family care plan as the media has been claiming is possible in this case.
The soldier involved in this case Specialist Alexis Hutchinson has nothing unusual about her story that other soldiers with failed family care plans had to face. So the fact should hired a civilian lawyer really peaked my interest because she had no need to hire a civilian lawyer because a military JAG or IG would jump all over this case if the unit commander told a soldier to put her daughter into social services and deploy.
Left Wing Anti-Military Connections
This is what has peaked my interest in this case. So who is her lawyer? Well a lady by the name of Rai Sue Sussman.
Sussman is a lawyer for the Law Offices of Stuart Hanlon which is based out of San Francisco. The fact that this lawyer is working out of San Francisco was a red flag right there considering all the anti-military initiatives coming out of the Bay area. So when you dig further into Sussman’s resume you see that in the past she was a member of the Bay Area Military Law Panel and the Military Law Task Force. So what is the MLTF? Here is the biography of this organization from the about page on their website:
The Military Law Task Force was formed in the 1970s in Washington, D.C. when Jim Klimaski, Mike Gaffney, and Keith Snyder first began publishing ON WATCH. In 1978, Kathy Gilberd became chair and the office was moved to San Diego, California.
The core of the Military Law Task Force has been people who were draft counselors/lawyers during the Vietnam War. We taught draft counseling classes in the 60s and set up the original anti-draft organizations at colleges and universities. As the war continued, we then moved on to military counseling and law.
The history of the Guild’s anti-war and draft counseling work can be traced back to 1967, when folks, including Freddy Gardner and Joseph Tieger, created the first GI Coffee Houses. Also at this time, Support Our Soldiers (SOS) and the US Servicemen’s Fund (USSF) began. The Guild began its military law counseling in 1968, and published the “Military Counseling Manual” in 1969. The Winter Soldier Investigation and the FTA shows with Jane Fonda also spurred the movement forward.
There is more on the about page, but this excerpt should give everyone an idea of what this organization is about. This posting only further confirms the “anti-militarist work” of this organization.
Here are some examples of what the MLTF are up to:
- impact litigation challenging discriminatory treatment of people with AIDS
- courtroom defense of draft registration resisters
- pro-bono work to secure basic benefits for homeless veterans
- taking part in a national hotline to support GIs opposed to war.
- Whether a GI is struggling against U.S. military policy, against racist, sexist and homophobic abuse, or against military influence in their communities, the MLTF is there to offer assistance.
- They also provide organizing services to counter recruitment of people into the military.
This group also has ties with the frauds from Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) that have been exposed here at the ROK Drop and other sites as well.
So this group is basically a bunch of left wing lawyers who work pro-bono for anti-military causes. Considering these lawyers are working pro-bono it made me wonder where is their funding coming from? It didn’t take me long to find out. If you look at the bottom of their webpage you can see they are sponsored by the Tides Foundation. So who is the Tides Foundation? This foundation is headed by a wealthy liberal by the name of Drummond Pike who just so happens to have deep ties to both ACORN and George Soros:
Drummond Pike, head of the Tides Foundation, wrote a personal check for about $700,000 to ACORN to cover the bulk of the $948,000 that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, embezzled from the ACORN network.The Tides Foundation is a pass-through entity. Wealthy liberals give the charity money, take the tax deduction, and then tell Tides which causes to give their money to. The money is then given in the name of Tides and the real donor’s name is withheld. Pike has said that keeping the identity of Tides donors secret is very important and that’s why he covered Dale Rathke’s debt. Pike is also treasurer of George Soros’s Democracy Alliance, which funds ACORN and plenty of other left-wing causes.
Wade Rathke, who was expelled by ACORN’s national board last summer for his role in covering up the embezzlement, is a member of the Tides board. Suspicious? You betcha. [The American Spectator]
From this webpage comes this great map that shows how the George Soros money is funneled to his various left wing causes with Drummond Pike and the Tides Foundation located at the top:
This map actually needs to now include the Pentagon as well because after the election of President Obama the Defense Department has been infiltrated by George Soros opperatives as well.
How the Story Became Part of the News Cycle
As I have shown the anti-military left is well organized and funded and the next step for them with this story was to get it into the news cycle. The MLTF using their media connections gets the story to Russ Bynum from the Associated Press who in the past has written articles about liberal issues such as about soldiers against the war and women serving in the military.
Judging by Russ Bynum’s Twitter page he doesn’t seem like a bad guy, but he has either knowingly or unknowingly served as the initiator for the anti-military left effort to get this story into the news cycle. After his article was published it spread to all the big media networks to include liberal pundits such as Joy Behar:
Take a look at this news coverage that calls this case “complicated”:
How is this case complicated? This situation happens all the time and all the other single parents in the military adjust and make do. So basically SPC Hutchinson’s failed family care plan, which is by no means an unusual occurrence in the military is being framed in the media in a way to attack the military by left wing anti-military activists in San Francisco with ties that go all the way back to George Soros.
Why Now?
So why is the anti-military left jumping on this issue now when failed family care plans have been an issue in the military long before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? I suspect it is because the anti-military left wants to influence the President’s decision on whether to deploy more troops to Afghanistan. Think about it, SPC Hutchinson was supposed to deploy to Afghanistan and the anti-military left is framing the issue in the media as one being of the uncaring military forcing single moms to put their kids in foster care to deploy to Afghanistan or face going to jail. If the President orders more soldiers to deploy how many more moms will be forced into foster care? Expect more stories to come out in the coming weeks from the left to influence the President’s decision to deploy more troops.
I am still convinced that this is why the left awarded the President the Nobel Peace Prize, how can the President go to Oslo to accept his award if he just ordered a massive troop increase in Afghanistan? The President is in a tough spot with his left wing base and is probably why the administration has been dropping trial balloons in the media about increasing troops in conjunction with a withdrawal time table to see how the left reacts.
Conclusion
One question no one in the media is asking is, where is the baby’s dad in all of this? The media is more then willing to paint the Army as being big, bad, and uncaring, but are not willing to say the same thing about the absent father. The Army is about deploying soldiers to defend the nation, not being a welfare service for single parents. Plus if SPC Hutchinson doesn’t deploy does anyone think the media will be asking the person who has to deploy in her place what they think of all of this, especially if they are a single mother as well?
I have no idea if this was SPC Hutchinson’s attention or not to intentionally do this, because her mother who lives in Oakland may have been approached by the MLTF who offered to provide her free legal assistance without knowing the background of this group. What I do find suspicious is that her mom is taking care of 14 kids as part of a in home day care, but can’t find time to take care of her own grandson? Also why did SPC Hutchinson not go to her command before the deployment day and say I can’t deploy because of my son? The deployment would have stopped right there, I have seen this happen before. Instead she didn’t show up at all and was listed as AWOL. That is why she was arrested, not because of the failed family care plan as the media keeps claiming. Anyway, right now there is just not enough information available to make a determination on SPC Hutchinson’s culpability in all this, but I seriously doubt that if she did do this intentionally that the military will go after her because of the left wing media backing she has.
If her failed family care plan issue has been unintentionally hijacked by the anti-military left then she should speak out and say that once she gets a new family care plan together she is more then willing to deploy. If she does speak out don’t expect the anti-military left and their media allies to back down. As I have shown over, & over & over & over & over & over, & over, & over again the anti-military left is more interested in creating perceptions of the military even if they are unfounded because in their minds the ends justifies the means. They are against the war in Afghanistan and are more then willing to manipulate a 21 year old specialist to advance their goals.
This is just another example that the politicization of the military continues.
5:35 am on November 23rd, 2009 1
1) Why is it that Republicans only care about how guys like George Soros spend their hard earned cash?
2) She’s still cute.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:11 am
Who said I was a Republican?
Also if Rupert Murdoch was going around funding anti-military initiatives I would exposing him as well. When these type of issues come up and I look into them it just so happens that they just about always go back to a George Soros funded group not Rupert Murdoch.
Also the countries that have arrest warrants for George Soros would differ with you on the “hard earned cash” line.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:01 am
“2)She’s still cute.”
And your still part of the problem.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 am
I don’t see how being cute is a problem.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
If that is what you feel is IMPORTANT, then it is a problem.
If that is how you judge people, based on their physical appearance,
then it is a problem.
I didn’t say “being cute is a problem”. Although it can be, when the men around you only want one thing from you and it isn’t
(job) performance.
I said -(YOU)- are part of the problem. For the above reasons.
Now, of course, if she enjoys the physical attention payed to her by those such as yourself, who work with her or above her, then it isn’t a problem for her. Might be for the other worker bees.
Just what kind of reward would you give this soldier for being “cute”?
It domanates YOUR thoughts.
Would you give her easier work? Would you send her to the promotion board, in exchange for a little somethin-somethin? Humm?
Maby that is why we hear nothing about “baby-daddy”.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Or maybe I was joking/alluding to the fact that she’s getting all that attention because she is cute.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
[DELETED BY ADMIN - Can we please leave her looks alone which has nothing to do with the article, thanks]
November 24th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
(DELETED BY ADMIN- you are not allowed to say she looks like a young Collin Powell, which has nothing to do with the article.)
November 24th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
7:09 am on November 23rd, 2009 2
I am a former Army officer and currently a lawyer. I recall during my days with the Green Machine on every deployment (whether training or contingency) single parent Joes would pop out of the woodwork to annouce they couldnt deploy because of their faulty family care plans. They would show up for deployment, announce this and then be allocated to Rear Detachment where they would be chaptered out. So what went wrong here?
Here is my guess:
1. SPC Hutchinson’s mother really did decide she couldn’t take the pressure of caring for another kid or Hutchinson just got fed up with the Army and decided to use the family care plan issue as an excuse to get out.
2. I suspect Hutchinson didn’t know how to “play the game” on this one. I would chalk this up to a combination of inexperience. She’s new to the Army and probably didn’t hang around with her fellow Soldiers where she would learn tricks since she was busy watching her son. Either that or she is stupid. Perhaps a combination.
3. Upon decidiing she can’t/didn’t want to deploy she calls Mom. Mom goes to a lawyer. She either goes directly to Sussman’s firm or gets directed there by an Oakland attorney.
4. Through ignorance or evil intent, Sussman advises Hutchinson to stay home on deployment day. This morphs an administrative kicking out into missing movement where wayward Soldiers do get arrested.
I really can’t figure out whether Sussman was stupid or trying to stir up trouble. Her bio shows her to be a pretty new lawyer. However, the “red flag” for me is her association with the National Lawyers Guild. These bottom feeders are so left wing they would make Stalin blush! My gut feeling is Sussman gave bad advice to create drama and anti-military headlines. But there is the possibility she just didn’t know better. After all, its not like a person with her background is likely to have first hand knowledge of how the military works…
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I’m in.
Reply
7:28 am on November 23rd, 2009 3
I’ve seen it go the other way, though. I know I’m IVAW, but even before I was IVAW, I’ve had to deal with this fight-not for myself, I had a family care plan, but for some of my soldiers.
The thing that was hardest was when a soldier was ALREADY deployed and their family care plan fell through. I saw that once-the woman she had left her child with started abusing her child and CPS got involved. She asked her unit for emergency leave and they refused to give it to her. There’s a difference between operating a daycare during the day and having a child all night. If the mother didn’t think she could handle the baby for a year, I commend her for saying something pre-deployment.
I also saw some circumstances where if someone’s family care plan fell through right before deployment, the unit would assume there were shady tricks up and refuse to stop the deployment. “If the Army wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one”.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:15 am
A JAG or the IG would have an absolute field day if a unit tried to deploy a soldier with no one to watch their kid. Please show an example of where someone had to give up their kid to social services to deploy? I have never seen it and never even heard of it. If you have a failed family care plan the Army is not going to deploy you. Pretty simple.
Reply
November 24th, 2009 at 8:18 am
I’ve never seen anyone give their kid up to social services in order to deploy before, it’s true. I have however seen people kept on the deployment list when their family care plan failed because the unit didn’t believe that the plan was really failed. I’ve also seen divorced parents where the soldier had custody, the soldier lose custody of their kid while deployed, but that’s another story altogether
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Am I to conclude that you have never seen the care plan work?
As to your statement that, “the unit would assume there were shady tricks”. Yep, that just never happens, does it? If your an Army Sergeant, you know it does. This is a good example.
Interesting that you would write, “if the army wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one”. Where did you hear that? A Movie maby?
The army is more about “family” than it is about “single people”. More support is given to the “family” than any other group. Possibly, because most people in the Army HAVE a “family”. Support groups for the family abound on Army post.
I, myself have taken weekend duty for individuals that for one reason or another had difficulties at home.
When I was in Iraq, there was a female who had a son get arrested back in Texas. She was on the next flight out of there. She never came back.
“ALREADY” Deployed does not mean you can’t return in 24 hours of notification.
I was in Korea when by Father went into hospital, not expected to survive. I was OUT the next day. Army and ACS (army comunity services) set up everything.
But there was a male in Bosnia that was refused a leave from there to see his son being born. So maby it helps if your a female to get a break.
Emergency leave being refused when a child is in danger? NOT-GONNA-HAPPEN. Heads would roll, so there is more to THAT story as well.
In any case, this current story does not add up.
Have a nice 1st CAV DAY.
One more thing: I can bitch about the army for a week and never tell the same story.
BUT, none of those stories will be about the army not taking care of children.
Dad might not get to see his son born, but if a problem develops, he will be OUT the next day. It isn’t perfect, but nothing is.
Reply
November 24th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Oh, no, I’ve seen the care plan work sometimes smoothly, and sometimes I’ve seen units go above and beyond. We had one soldier whose wife died, and he was able to stay with his kids and they actually cut him a LOT of slack about work hours as well. Sometimes the system works. Sometimes it doesn’t. It tends to depend on the individuals in leadership and the good (and bad) decisions they make.
Actually, I’ve never heard that in a movie, but I have heard it said by one or two platoon sergeants and first sergeants. Sometimes people in the Army say stuff they shouldn’t. Like the first sergeant once who denied a Jewish soldier leave to be with her dying mother on a Jewish holiday, because, and I quote, “Your people killed Jesus.” Does it happen lots? No. But does it happen? Yes.
You’re right that shady tricks happen around deployment time. I completely understand that. My opinion has always been that we still have to treat all circumstances as though they are valid and serious, and if it turns out shadiness is involved, punish after, because I don’t want to waste time doing investigative work before deciding if I want to help a soldier.
Reply
November 24th, 2009 at 9:47 am
I agree with your last paragraph.
That 1st Sergeant that said, “your people killed Jesus.” is obviously an Ignorant asss. I seem to remember that christianity was born from the Jews. ie, Jesus was of the jews. Since there were no christians before Jesus.
I could be wrong, as I haven’t been to church as an adult for any length of time. So if I’m wrong, I am sure someone will correct me.
Even if I’m wrong, he is still a dumbasss. I have seen way too many Senior NCO’s that didn’t know their assss from a hole in the ground.
Don’t make me POTUS. I would have a field day transforming the army.
#1. get rid of Sergeants Major. They do nothing but drink coffee and collect a pay check. Senior enlisted advisor to the Commander my assss. Like the Commander listens to em. Oh, I agree with the CO on this one.
Promotions for NCO’s in the army are a joke. From local boards to DA.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
“Like the first sergeant once who denied a Jewish soldier leave to be with her dying mother on a Jewish holiday, because, and I quote, “Your people killed Jesus.” Does it happen lots? No. But does it happen? Yes.”
Whoa, I find it hard to believe if that ever did happen, that one 1st Shirt would not have been given VD kit inventory for the remainder of his or her career.
Remarks such as ‘your people killed Jesus’ as far as I have ever known would be serious allegations, if a compassionate leave were denied because of it.
Do things like this happen, yes. so do rapes and assaults, But it would be ‘rare’ that an individual in the military who did such a thing was not reported and reprimanded. 1st shirt or not.
And if you are now part of the civilian community, you must know by now that what you may have heard, second hand in the military, is common place in civilian life.
8:53 am on November 23rd, 2009 4
Chapter 14 and move on. That’s the bottom line. She is not cute, she is a liability to the “good order and discipline to the US Army.” If the Army lets her slide out like the salamander she is all sorts of other vermin will use the same path.
Put her back in the ghetto.
She is as irresponsible as anyone could be.
If you think she is cute, too bad.
GET HER OUT OF THE ARMY.
Reply
9:33 am on November 23rd, 2009 5
“1) Why is it that Republicans only care about how guys like George Soros spend their hard earned cash?”
Malaysia also cares.
2) She’s still cute.
That’s why she will likely have a couple more kids by a couple more guys until that cuteness wears off.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
Get with the news. Mahathir Mohamad hasn’t been prime minister of Malaysia since 2003. The only thing he apparently does to keep himself busy nowadays is blogging.
Reply
9:53 am on November 23rd, 2009 6
“That’s why she will likely have a couple more kids by a couple more guys until that cuteness wears off.”
I’m sure you won’t be as cute as you thing you are in 30 years…if you’re still alive then, that is.
Reply
9:56 am on November 23rd, 2009 7
Had a look at the video…She’s not as cute in the picture of her in uniform. It’s almost as if it’s a different person.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
WHAT?! Did we lose interest in our little cupcake?
Now that she is not so cute. What a surprize!
You didn’t even mention why she is news.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I did…You need to learn to read between the lines.
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I take you at the words you write.
You need to learn to write what you mean.
10:36 am on November 23rd, 2009 8
“I’m sure you won’t be as cute as you thing you are in 30 years…if you’re still alive then, that is.”
Wow… that was bitter… bordering on hateful.
What’s next? Yo’ mama’s fat?
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
[DELETED BY ADMIN]
Reply
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Truth sometimes hurts.
Reply
4:31 pm on November 23rd, 2009 9
This was a good read for sure. Haha i think i enjoy reading the comments as much as the article!
Reply
November 24th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Good thing your not reading all this in German, Japanese or Russian.
Reply
6:29 pm on November 23rd, 2009 10
heh, the woman in the video is the grandmother. lol. of course it is a different person.
Reply
7:19 pm on November 24th, 2009 11
Wow I expected you to actually dig up details about HER case, not the past and associations of her lawyer of choice. Things like statements made by her PLT SGT’s, 1SG or CDR. Whether there is confirmation or not that she informed her chain of command about her dilemma and they told her “ohh well deal with it”.
Instead you go into a mini-rant / conspiracy post about the anti-military guys. Well guess what if ~I~ was about to get ramrodded for some BS then the first thing I would do is find the most anti-military left lawyer possible to defend me, and the fact that its for free is a bonus. If you actually looked into it you would see that that specific organization (MLTF) was formed during the era when the US military really screwed its soldiers over and swept lots of crap under the rug.
The fact remains her family care plan failed immediately prior to deployment and she needed time to fix things. This has been stated already. She has also stated that the unit told her “no” on her request for additional time. Fearing that she would be forced onto the airplane and her child taken into CPS she didn’t show up, this also has been stated. Now anyone who’s been a NCO (or Officer) in the US Army knows that wouldn’t happen, but this young SPC obviously didn’t know. Most younger soldiers don’t know crap about how things really work, this is why many seniors can pull BS and use that ignorance to control them. And why most seniors hate the guy who actually does his homework and takes the time to learn the system.
So yes, depending on who your unit CDR / CSM is, it may be a good idea to get a civilian lawyer if it looks like their about to pull some BS on you. If their wrong its guaranteed to prevent them from sweeping it under the rug, and if their really wrong then it’ll ruin their careers and send out a message to the others not to try that BS. And FYI, I’ve personally seen the US Army JAG system ramrod several people. To the point where one of the prosecutors said (after the trial while we had a drink) he knew the guy wasn’t guilty, but the CG wanted to make an example of him. So the JAG guy did his best to get the other guy locked up, and he did. He put away a man he knew was innocent, because the command wanted him to. Remember rarely do the good lawyers stay in TDS (Trial Defense Services), most get offered command JAG positions, which they accept because its better promotion opportunity. Like taking a 1SG position over a BGE staff job.
Reply
November 24th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Ummmm, I’ve been on both sides and while younger soldiers/ marines/sailors/ airmen don’t know crap about how things work, it is usually the younger soldier/marine/sailor/airmen who try to pull the BS routine. Often it is because they do not yet understand that BS will get you nowhere.
I have yet to meet the guy who actually does the homework and takes the time to learn the system who was hated by ‘most’ seniors.
If you mean a person who thinks he/she knows the system enough to scam it and gets caught, then I agree, most seniors look poorly on the individual, if only because they have long ago ‘been there, done that’.
Reply
November 24th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Seniors pull way more BS then the troopers ever will. Troopers are easy to control provided you use the appropriate tactics (going drill and yelling doesn’t work these days). Most troopers only care about their free time and what their doing that weekend, or college / life goals. Its the Seniors that will get away with all sorts of crap because what can anyone do to them? It takes nearly an act of congress to remove rank, or they have to commit some grand crime that warrants a courts martial. And even then the CSM will usually “have their backs” to prevent dissension from showing in the upper ranks.
As for CDR’s and 1SG’s, anyone who has been a SSG or higher knows its the 1SG that runs a company. Hell most experienced SGT’s know that. During UCMJ actions the CDR will almost always do what the 1SG recommends. If the 1SG recommends “max em sir” then that is what happens. Problem happens when 1SG’s take this to their heads and think their god or that their word is regulation. Anyhow that is a much longer discussion.
I’ve met many many seniors that get pissed at the guy who knows WTF their talking about. Usually because the senior (incorrectly) assumes that because they have rank that their word overrides regulation / policy / everything else. And when presented with the proper regulation / policy, on the side and in a private manner, they blow up and get pissed. If you want to do something your way, then work to get the reg / policy changed to reflect your belief.
Scamers get caught eventually, it may take time but you can’t cheat a system and not pay a price. But at the same time the leader can not assume everyone is a scamer. You can always tell who the good leaders where by how their soldiers referred to them. Good leaders will find the time to listen when a soldier has a problem and try to identify the root of the problem to resolve it in a quick and efficient manner. Bad leaders will just yell at or ignore the troopers.
Reply
November 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Meh.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
So true!
8:27 pm on November 24th, 2009 12
“Wow I expected you to actually dig up details about HER case, not the past and associations of her lawyer of choice.”
In GI’s defense, that is because the media is being very selective in what details about her are released. With that in mind, a picture of the situation has to be created with facts that aren’t being hidden.
Media manipulation gives probable cause to rant.
Reply
November 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Ohh I agree that the media is spewing lots of BS and making the problem worse. That is why I try to stick to the quotes and known facts when sizing up a situation.
He’s going after an anti-military group (actually the group’s original purpose was to shield soldiers from retaliation from their commands) with his rants because their making the military look bad. Of COURSE their going to do that, but who gave them the ammunition to fire? If the unit would of taken care of things properly then the group wouldn’t have the ammo to shoot. Its like being pissed at a snake for biting you when you picked it up. Its kinda what it’s supposed to do. Its like those damn soldiers who b!tch and moan when their given article non-judicial UCMJ (Art 15) that the commands going “after them”. If you wouldn’t do things to give the command a reason to bust you then they wouldn’t bust you. And if they try to bust you without a reason, well that is why the right to a trial by courts martial and the civilian lawyer / congressmen approach exist.
Reply
4:05 pm on November 25th, 2009 13
GI,
I’m late coming to this thread but the those questions about the day care and who the father was popped into my head as soon as I read the details about Hutchinson.
Just before I PCSd from San Diego to The Philippines, my superior officer was discovered to be having an affair with the wife of a petty officer. I knew the PO and his wife. The PO slashed the tires on the officer’s car and got caught doing so.
My CO suspected I told the Petty Officer. I never knew there was an affair going on. The wife, her name was Jennifer or Jenn was pregnant too at the time of tire slashing. This was all the talk of Balboa the last few weeks I was there. What a mess it was, I never found out what the final resolution was. I didn’t have email so a buddy could keep me informed.
Reply