Seems that A Marine's Girl has been vindicated. The "Top" aka "Master Gunnery Sergeant Conover" is, according to AMG a 33 year-old man. It's not too likely to he has an honorable discharge at the rank of E-9 or as she points out, string of Vietnamese Ears as a "necklace". Hmmm, doing the math, that would make him about what, Five years old when Saigon fell? Sounds like just another Sad Wannabe Couch-borne ChickenBlogger, who well ... who knows. How Sad.
She's trying to resurrect her site, and she's planning to push on with the good work she's been doing, supporting her Marine in Iraq and making many significant others feel better about being here on the "homefront" while their husbands/wives/girlfriends/boyfriends are counting down the days until they get back here to the world, for good.
Semper Fi, A Marine's Girl. All's well that ends well...keep us all posted.
posted by Jo Fish on 11.20.03 at 11:50 PM
Comments:
I'm sure the vets among us always suspected this sad truth. But it's encouraging to learn, once again, that gut instinct, so often honed by experience, still works. Bravo and JFWD for Marine Girl. Now....about that USMC investigation.
Kinda makes me feel a bit better about my feelings over Commander Codpiece's victory swagger, ya know?
posted by: Lurch on 11.21.03 at 05:32 AM [permalink]
I say we find the little fucker, and string him up by his cojones...just a suggestion...LOL!
I can't believe he used the "necklace of ears" story! That is one sad carbon-based lifeform...
posted by: Frank White on 11.21.03 at 12:22 PM [permalink]
Do the retired gunneys have an organization like the ex-SEALs do? One that outs poor pathetic wannabes and expose them for the frauds they are? If not, it sounds like it may be about time for one.
His name is Ken Conover, he is a 1988 graduate of Plattsmouth High School in Plattsmouth, NE. He was NEVER a MGy/Sgt in my Marine Corps.
In addition to his erroneous claims of military service, he was found seeking photos of people having sex with animals in the form of "felching" as well as soliciting the service of Internet Hackers.
This is one sick puppy.
He currently resides with Marion Conover in Gainesville, TX.
You can e-mail him at; warrior@texoma.net
posted by: Capt. Miller on 11.23.03 at 02:25 PM [permalink]
Following are some pertinent facts on Bush's military
service including his dubious defense that he fulfilled his service because he got an "honorable discharge."
In fact, if Bush tested positive on a drug test in 1972-73, he still could have received an honorable discharge under the law at the time.
What happened to the records of Bush's service between May, 1972-May, 1973? Col. (ret.) Rufus G. Martin, 147th Wing Personnel Officer for Bush's unit, said the absence was due to "administrative reasons." The hole in the middle of Bush's military records raises questions, including the culpability of Bush's commanding officers for not following the UCMJ.
According to the UCMJ definition of AWOL, Bush was AWOL at the moment he didn't show up for his flight physical--not to mention the full year he was not showing up to his Guard Unit to perform his military duties.
Bush doesn't deny he was suspended from flying for not taking his flight physical, and that fact is in the records.
It's not a pilot's option to
choose to take or not take the flight physical. The commander is required to take action--an FEB or a charge of failure to perform his assigned duties.
The definition of AWOL, absent without leave, is clear:
Article 86 of Uniform Code of Military Justice--
"Any member of the armed forces who, without authority--
1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
2) goes from that place; or
3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place
of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;
Shall be punished as a court martial may direct."
Why wasn't a Flight Evaluation Board called when
Bush didn't show up for his flight physical? An FEB is the usual course of action for not maintaining medical qualification to fly, i.e. refusing to
take a flight physical. The FEB results in a pilot being removed from flight status. Bush was "suspended" from flying status according to his records.
So, are the missing military records hiding an FEB, and a subsequent
administrative action, such as time in a drug rehabilitation program?
Bush's argument that he couldn't have been AWOL because he received an"honorable discharge," is a lie.
Under the law at the time, Bush could have
failed a drug urinalysis test ordered by his commander, and still have received an honorable discharge.
In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that "Command-Directed" urinalysis tests could be used to discharge someone--but they could not be used to determine discharge characterization. A command-directed urinalysis is when the commander orders someone to take a urinalysis drug test, that isn't random, and isn't based on probable cause.
The fact that someone tested positive on
a Command Directed Urinalysis could be used as the reason for discharge, but could not be used in determining whether the service was honorable, general, or under other-than-honorable conditions. (Note: Results of a random urinalysis test, or probable cause test can still be used for discharge characterization).
For example, if a pilot didn't show up for his flight physical, a commander could order a "command-directed" urinalysis; the result could be FEB suspension of flying status, rehabilitative treatment at a drug use treatment program,and/or an administrative discharge under honorable conditions.
When the Supreme Court ruled against the Army on this issue in 1972, the Dept. of Defense had to create a new program which allowed servicemembers discharged prior to 1972 because of a command-directed drug test---to receive an automatic upgrade of their discharge to "honorable."
Thirdly, under 803. Article 3. Jurisdiction to try Certain Personnel,
Bush--and those who commanded him--are still liable for any fraudulent actions committed while in either active duty or inactive-duty training or service. Whoever is determined to be responsible for missing records can be charged with a crime.
803. Article 3. Jurisdiction to try Certain Personnel,
a) Subject to section 843 of this title (article 43), any person discharged from the Armed Forces who is later charged with having fraudulently obtained his discharge is, subject to trial by court-martial on that charge and is, after apprehension, subject to trial for all offenses under this chapter committed before the fraudulent discharge.
b) A member of a reserve component, who is subject to this chapter is not, by virtue of the termination of a period of active duty or inactive-duty training, relieved from amenability to the jurisdiction of this chapter for an offense against this chapter committed during such period of active duty or inactive-duty training.
Col (ret.) Mark DeBolt, USAF
Florida
posted by: Mark DeBolt on 02.08.04 at 09:09 PM [permalink]
I am being admin separated for popping positive on a command directed drug test but i am innocent. i have been researching non stop for the past 2 months and have learned so much i dont know how to organize it in written form. there were so many discrepencies in my case that it is haard to ofocus on which one. they lied about it being command directed. the seal ripped and trhey wouldn't give me aNOTHER, they didn't call me to tell me i found out from a marine 3 weeks later (at the store), they told everyone with no regard to confidentialty, they charged me on a day that i came in without pay. etc.
oh,. im a reservist and just came off of active duty in jan.
i need help. they have given me no direction nor will they assist me in defending myself. i went and got a hair test done myself which came out negative but what should i do now?
i've been writing a brief and a letter of appeal and an overview of drug testing facts, but i don't feel safe anymore relying on the unbiased treatment from ny command, pleasse advise.
posted by: angel on 07.07.04 at 02:42 PM [permalink]
still havent been officially charged for popping on a urinalysis but they are trying to separate me before a court martial date is set.. how is this legal?
how do i seek assistance and or legal advice?
posted by: angel on 08.12.04 at 09:14 PM [permalink]
