A Sikh-American Soldier Won the Right to Serve with His Beard, Long Hair and Turban

Unknown on the section commander - Rich was retiring close to the time I came on active duty and a lot has changed since then. I've never seen that duty title outside of googling it.

 

Neuhaus,

I didn’t hurl an irrelevant accusation as you suggest; I did however confront (in depth) his command claims re personnel numbers (600 and 900)—but only after delaying the challenge for several days in optimism that Rich might amend or withdraw his claims—hardly a knee-jerk /come out swinging emotional response on my part. In that Rich didn’t make amends, I openly questioned the validity of his claim—that’s neither irrelevant and not a denouncement … but a relevant action initiated on a comprehensive rebuttal re his commander level claims. You referenced the lexis … stolen valor.

In that airtorn is a current active duty member of the USAF (and I’ll trust that he is ... even though he has selected to have his identity remain anonymous) … has not elected to directly defend Rich’s commander claims. He has posted comment that in his 22-years of active duty service … he’s never known of ANY O-3 Capt. commanding ANY squadron—only O-5 LT COL or O-4 MAJ. And 600 or 900 personnel size units would be at minimum a squadron (re Rich’s commander personnel numbers assertion). We can all grasp Rich’s exaggerated commander posting … and the outright command claims should leave little doubt as to what his (Rich’s) intentions were—complete candor not being one in my view.

To date Rich has offered no revisions … so consider he’s just going to stay with the unviable and untenable commander (600 and 900 personnel) narrative. He was an admin (non-unit /section) officer—not an operational unit commanding officer. See TYPES OF USAF ORGANIZATIONS Non-units/squadron sections Non-unit (squadron section re Factsheets : Types of USAF Organizations. At a minimum he pitched the presumptive notion of his literally commanding (being the commander /commanding officer of)—unrealistic personnel numbers authorized by TO&E for his particular grade/rank command (commander) level authority re “I did serve as a commander in Korea. Just 600 men and women. It was only 900 at Nellis. No one shooting at us, but hardly "driving a desk" (R. Douglas). That's a pretty darn absolute assertion Neuhaus.

My direct challenge to Rich’s false (overreached) declaration was perpetrated on the premise that he could have only commanded units the size he claimed (600 and 900 airmen), at minimum, as a squadron commander (a senior air force officer (SAFO) billet, e.g., an O-5 LTC or O-4 MAJ grade/rank). It’s essential that it be understood that Rich served as squadron section commander (an administrative /personnel officer /O-3 Capt.—e.g., squadron sections being merely segments of units ... responsible for the administrative control of members assigned to the unit; appointed and delegated with UCMJ Article 15 NJP authority—with limited punitive authority per his grade/rank level via ‘G’-series orders published by his commanding officer)—with that particular duty title (e.g., squadron section commander) info being later reminded by Moderator airtorn.

Even to this date, Rich has not initiated the honorable action to withdraw, or at least, make revision to his command level claims. Although in effect busted on his embellishment… his own self-importance impede such. He’s unlikely to ever retreat from the commander level claim—even though he’s aware that realities have uncovered his fabrications. It is unlikely he’ll demonstrate any meaningful expression of regret either (conscience) for his deception. Expectedly, he’s more likely hopeful this will soon pass. And whether it do, do not, or possibly has … his general level of honesty, at minimum as to his declared military service command level experience ... could be considered as questionable. That prospect may not be so easily dismissed or necessarily forgotten …

Note: The dovetailing /tag-teaming comments were intended to be restricted to this particular thread. I should have been clearer. I was remiss to not do so.

 

All righty, I'm going to level with you, I'm actually just tired of arguing about this.

Did Rich accurately portray his military experience? Don't know, don't care.

I'm not a huge fan of the whole public shaming when you catch someone saying something that, in your opinion, is a lie. There are exceptions, of course. An 18 year old goes home with a "leave rack" to impress his girlfriend. Yeah, he shouldn't do it. But I don't think you should destroy his life over it. That same 18 year old goes home and pretends to be a Medal of Honor recipient? OK, now we have a serious problem that warrants a serious response.

You want to challenge Rich? That's fine. That's your business. But don't try to drag every veteran on the board into your battle. And certainly don't try to act as though the other veterans/active duty service members are remiss for not stomping our feet and making a big deal out of a flippant comment.

While we're speaking about honor and dignity the appropriate thing to do would have been to address the issue to Rich privately rather than attempt to publicly shame him. You didn't do the world a service. You didn't fight for the dignity of the uniforms that we all wore. If anything, in my opinion, you embarrassed yourself and the branches you claim to have served in by acting like an overly emotional vigilante rather than someone who actually cared about getting to the truth.

Again, I don't know what the "truth" here is. And frankly, I don't care. It is inconsequential to my life. If you want to shake your "bad veteran!" stick at me because of it then so be it. But this is getting silly and is not ever going to end in a way that will satisfy all parties. So, walking away.

 

Despite the fact that we're all having so much fun in this particular sandbox, I'm closing the thread as it seems entirely unproductive/counterproductive at this point.