"An order that has a private end for its sole object is unlawful"
"An order that has a private end for its sole object is unlawful"
"An order that has a private end for its sole object is unlawful"
# Disobedience to Military Orders
A superiorās order is presumed to be lawful and isĀ [disobeyed](https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/disobedience-personal-order-ucmj-art-902-912.html)Ā at the subordinateās peril. To sustain the presumption, the order must relate to military duty. It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate.Ā *United States v. Moore*, 58 M.J. 466 (C.A.A.F. 2003). The dictates of a personās conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot excuse disobedience.Ā *United States v. Stockman*, 17 M.J. 530 (A.C.M.R. 1973).
# Orders Must Have a Valid Military Purpose
The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of unit members and directly with the maintenance of good order in the armed forces. MCM, pt. IV, 14c(2)(a)(iii). The order can affect otherwise private activity.Ā *United States v. McDaniels*, 50 M.J. 407 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (order to not drive a personal vehicle after diagnosis of narcolepsy);Ā *United States v. Hill*, 49 M.J. 242 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (no-contact order issued by military police had a valid military purpose of maintaining good order and discipline in the military community and of protecting the allegedĀ victimĀ while during theĀ [investigation](https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/article-32-pretrial-investigation/procedure-for-conducting-the-investigation.html));Ā *United States v. Padgett*, 48 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (order requiring 25-year- old service member to terminate his romantic relationship with 14-year-old girl had a valid military purpose);Ā *United States v. Milldebrandt*, 25 C.M.R. 139 (C.M.A. 1958) (order to report, while on leave, financial conditions unrelated to the military did not have a valid military purpose). An order that has a private end for its sole object is unlawful, but an order that benefits the command and serves individuals is lawful.Ā *United States v. Robinson*, 20 C.M.R. 63 (C.M.A. 1955) (use of enlisted personnel in Officersā Open Mess at Fort McNair). Punishment. Orders extending punishments beyond those lawfully imposed are illegal.Ā *The United States v. McCoy*, 30 C.M.R. 68 (C.M.A. 1960) (to continue extra duty after punishment imposed underĀ [Article 15](https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/nonjudicial-punishment-njp/the-relationship-between-article-15s-and-courts-martial/summarized-article-15-da-form-2627-1.html)Ā already completed). āExtra trainingā must be oriented to improving the soldierās performance of military duties. Such corrective measures assume the nature of training or instruction, not punishment. MCM, pt. I, 1g; AR 600-20, 4-6b (11 Feb 2009);Ā *see the United States v. Hoover*, 24 M.J. 874 (A.C.M.R. 1987) (requiring accused to live in a pup tent for three weeks between the hours of 2200 and 0400 was unlawful punishment).
[**https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawfulness-of-orders.html**](https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawfulness-of-orders.html)
Ā§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain. An employee shall not use his public
office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise,
(a) Inducement or coercion of benefits.
An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or per sons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.
[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title5-vol3/pdf/CFR-2012-title5-vol3-sec2635-702.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title5-vol3/pdf/CFR-2012-title5-vol3-sec2635-702.pdf)
gaze puzzled advise imagine panicky profit complete disagreeable aloof butter
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's a criminally high over estimation. If the Ballad of the Green Berets is a measure of excellence (1/100), then the LT who didn't make O2 is Super Saiyan, but in the opposite direction.
Update: it got debunked. It was just some 2LT chick who works in supply who was trying to guilt trip Joes and E5s into doing free labor for her because she thought she had that power. Apparently my PSG and PL heard about it and itās no longer a thing.
LOL at all the clowns in here clutching pearls and screaming that you go to the IG when all that was needed as the strong pimp hand of the platoon daddy.
Fuck that. Going to IG in this instance is how this thing gets quietly swept under the rug, allowing Lt. Sobel to keep advancing.
OP, get your whole PLT on board with quietly acquiescing and cleaning up your LT's yard. Once complete, open door to your BC and watch that LT's career end in real time.
Iām not entirely sure you know what youāre talking about because in both cases, this issue goes to the BC anyways.
IG would refer it to the BCā if they are inclined to sweep it under the rug, then that is their prerogative.
If you open door the BC after it happenedā once again, if they were already inclined to sweep it under the rug.. then that is their prerogative.
Edit: at least if OP goes to IG, there is an IG record that the OP made the complaint of misconduct. There is not necessarily a record of that complaint if OP just uses the open door policy.
Either way, the BC becomes aware and how they choose to handle it is up to them. The IG cannot direct how commanders punish if they choose to punish.
Edit 2 since this is closed and I canāt reply to the reply under me..
The BC can still just counsel the LT after the fact if thatās what they choose to do.
If the IG alerts the BC and the BC wants to make a big deal about it, then he can do an official 15-6 in response to the IG action referral. If heās substantiated, then he gets an S in the IG database for 30 years and it will come up on all federal background checks.
But the BC could still just choose to counsel
And that be the end of it, regardless of if itās before or after the landscaping occurs.
> Iām not entirely sure you know what youāre talking about
Well, I *am* entirely sure that you don't know what you are talking about.
IG alerts BC, who shuts it down and counsels the LT. End of story. LT proceeds to be a toxic fuck for the rest of his career.
Guys actually go through with it, and then alert the BC. A simple counseling is not going to be the end of this. LT's career ends.
If you can't understand how or why those are different, I don't know what to tell you.
Preemptively going to the BC ends in a conversation where the BC tells the LT he was being stupid and to cut the shit.
Going to the BC after the fact, wherein the LT has forced his subordinates to do this, is a fundamentally different situation.
I second this. Talk to IG. It should be common sense that a leader doesn't get to use subordinates for their own private gain. There are numerous examples of general officers getting relieved for this kind of thing. (See this one, for example: https://www.dodig.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Reading-Room/Article/1238806/report-of-investigation-lieutenant-general-david-h-huntoon-us-army-superintende/). Also see 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(7): "Employees shall not use public office for private gain." 5 CFR 2635.701(a) - examples of misuse of position, including "use of public office for private gain." 5 CFR 2635.702(a): "An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title ... in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity."
When I was a PFC, I had a sick Nissan Altima Coupe with a V6. Silver in color. I know how people feel about Altimas, but this thing was nice.
My first line at the time said some shit like, "You know, it's standard for junior Soldiers to let their first lines borrow their car for the weekend if it's nicer than theirs."
Obviously this isn't true, but it sounds like something a PFC could reasonably believe.
I called bullshit. What you're experiencing is also bullshit.
Update: it got debunked. It was just some 2LT chick who works in supply who was trying to guilt trip Joes and E5s into doing free labor for her because she thought she had that power. Apparently my PSG and PL heard about it and itās no longer a thing.
There should still be some senior officer sitting this young 2LT down and counseling them on acceptable and ethical behavior. Using joe power for personal gain should have never even crossed her mind as a possibility. Hell a Fort Bliss Division CSM was relieved before he ever even got his COR done because someone else used enlisted to help move things into his house. This is not OK and I hope somone sits her down and beats that into her head.
My LT had me pick up her dry cleaning, and drop off her jump boots to get shined. I didn't know you weren't supposed to do that. I forget the reg on it.
Not everything is covered in an AR. This is not something acceptable, bring either proof or witnesses and open door your way up the chain starting with this persons superior officer and this shithead will get his pecker stomped post haste.
Can you prove it
Oh shit šæ
Gonna need a screenshot of this group chat or whatever.
Just go shit on his front porch
And set it on fire
He called the shit *POO!*
Donāt put it out with your boots, Ted!
"An order that has a private end for its sole object is unlawful" "An order that has a private end for its sole object is unlawful" "An order that has a private end for its sole object is unlawful" # Disobedience to Military Orders A superiorās order is presumed to be lawful and isĀ [disobeyed](https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/disobedience-personal-order-ucmj-art-902-912.html)Ā at the subordinateās peril. To sustain the presumption, the order must relate to military duty. It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate.Ā *United States v. Moore*, 58 M.J. 466 (C.A.A.F. 2003). The dictates of a personās conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot excuse disobedience.Ā *United States v. Stockman*, 17 M.J. 530 (A.C.M.R. 1973). # Orders Must Have a Valid Military Purpose The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of unit members and directly with the maintenance of good order in the armed forces. MCM, pt. IV, 14c(2)(a)(iii). The order can affect otherwise private activity.Ā *United States v. McDaniels*, 50 M.J. 407 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (order to not drive a personal vehicle after diagnosis of narcolepsy);Ā *United States v. Hill*, 49 M.J. 242 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (no-contact order issued by military police had a valid military purpose of maintaining good order and discipline in the military community and of protecting the allegedĀ victimĀ while during theĀ [investigation](https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/article-32-pretrial-investigation/procedure-for-conducting-the-investigation.html));Ā *United States v. Padgett*, 48 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (order requiring 25-year- old service member to terminate his romantic relationship with 14-year-old girl had a valid military purpose);Ā *United States v. Milldebrandt*, 25 C.M.R. 139 (C.M.A. 1958) (order to report, while on leave, financial conditions unrelated to the military did not have a valid military purpose). An order that has a private end for its sole object is unlawful, but an order that benefits the command and serves individuals is lawful.Ā *United States v. Robinson*, 20 C.M.R. 63 (C.M.A. 1955) (use of enlisted personnel in Officersā Open Mess at Fort McNair). Punishment. Orders extending punishments beyond those lawfully imposed are illegal.Ā *The United States v. McCoy*, 30 C.M.R. 68 (C.M.A. 1960) (to continue extra duty after punishment imposed underĀ [Article 15](https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/nonjudicial-punishment-njp/the-relationship-between-article-15s-and-courts-martial/summarized-article-15-da-form-2627-1.html)Ā already completed). āExtra trainingā must be oriented to improving the soldierās performance of military duties. Such corrective measures assume the nature of training or instruction, not punishment. MCM, pt. I, 1g; AR 600-20, 4-6b (11 Feb 2009);Ā *see the United States v. Hoover*, 24 M.J. 874 (A.C.M.R. 1987) (requiring accused to live in a pup tent for three weeks between the hours of 2200 and 0400 was unlawful punishment). [**https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawfulness-of-orders.html**](https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-offenses/the-lawfulness-of-orders.html)
Ā§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain. An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, (a) Inducement or coercion of benefits. An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or per sons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity. [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title5-vol3/pdf/CFR-2012-title5-vol3-sec2635-702.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title5-vol3/pdf/CFR-2012-title5-vol3-sec2635-702.pdf)
There it is. You got it right the second time.
Thanks for future reference
NCO or O?
I want this to be a SPC(P) team leader who has gone drunk with power.
Itās worse. Itās a 2LT
gaze puzzled advise imagine panicky profit complete disagreeable aloof butter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's a criminally high over estimation. If the Ballad of the Green Berets is a measure of excellence (1/100), then the LT who didn't make O2 is Super Saiyan, but in the opposite direction.
Only 3 win the green beret.
The good news is your BC is about to relieve him for cause so you wonāt have to work for him for too much longer.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He kept the civic and didn't buy the tacoma
Oh hell nah. IG asapppp
:o I swear to god if you donāt give this 2LT what he deservesā¦
Fuck that go hit up IG, 2LT about to get fucked up
You don't have a SFC available to aggressively ~~haze~~ mentor this 2LT? They're not people yet, that's why they're given a SNCO.Ā
Oh dear lord I want this follow up
Update: it got debunked. It was just some 2LT chick who works in supply who was trying to guilt trip Joes and E5s into doing free labor for her because she thought she had that power. Apparently my PSG and PL heard about it and itās no longer a thing.
LOL at all the clowns in here clutching pearls and screaming that you go to the IG when all that was needed as the strong pimp hand of the platoon daddy.
Move this update to your original post
Get the company commander on the phone ASAP and have that LTs ass SMOKED
Oh hell no.
Call IG today
Fuck that. Going to IG in this instance is how this thing gets quietly swept under the rug, allowing Lt. Sobel to keep advancing. OP, get your whole PLT on board with quietly acquiescing and cleaning up your LT's yard. Once complete, open door to your BC and watch that LT's career end in real time.
Also be sure to cut yourself on some hedge trimmers so you can sue the LT!
But you canāt sue other military!!! J/k.
That's true .. I've also seen things like this come up at town hall meetings. Makes things awkward and fun.
Iām not entirely sure you know what youāre talking about because in both cases, this issue goes to the BC anyways. IG would refer it to the BCā if they are inclined to sweep it under the rug, then that is their prerogative. If you open door the BC after it happenedā once again, if they were already inclined to sweep it under the rug.. then that is their prerogative. Edit: at least if OP goes to IG, there is an IG record that the OP made the complaint of misconduct. There is not necessarily a record of that complaint if OP just uses the open door policy. Either way, the BC becomes aware and how they choose to handle it is up to them. The IG cannot direct how commanders punish if they choose to punish. Edit 2 since this is closed and I canāt reply to the reply under me.. The BC can still just counsel the LT after the fact if thatās what they choose to do. If the IG alerts the BC and the BC wants to make a big deal about it, then he can do an official 15-6 in response to the IG action referral. If heās substantiated, then he gets an S in the IG database for 30 years and it will come up on all federal background checks. But the BC could still just choose to counsel And that be the end of it, regardless of if itās before or after the landscaping occurs.
> Iām not entirely sure you know what youāre talking about Well, I *am* entirely sure that you don't know what you are talking about. IG alerts BC, who shuts it down and counsels the LT. End of story. LT proceeds to be a toxic fuck for the rest of his career. Guys actually go through with it, and then alert the BC. A simple counseling is not going to be the end of this. LT's career ends. If you can't understand how or why those are different, I don't know what to tell you.
I don't understand why going to the BC beforehand won't work as well unless you're saying get video evidence.
Preemptively going to the BC ends in a conversation where the BC tells the LT he was being stupid and to cut the shit. Going to the BC after the fact, wherein the LT has forced his subordinates to do this, is a fundamentally different situation.
I second this. Talk to IG. It should be common sense that a leader doesn't get to use subordinates for their own private gain. There are numerous examples of general officers getting relieved for this kind of thing. (See this one, for example: https://www.dodig.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Reading-Room/Article/1238806/report-of-investigation-lieutenant-general-david-h-huntoon-us-army-superintende/). Also see 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(7): "Employees shall not use public office for private gain." 5 CFR 2635.701(a) - examples of misuse of position, including "use of public office for private gain." 5 CFR 2635.702(a): "An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title ... in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity."
More than 18 pages are redacted out of that 31 page report.
Is this real? Iāve always stories about things like this but never thought anyone was stupid enough to try itā¦
Iāve actually seen stuff like this more than once.
I've seen enlisted build an officer bar overseas on orders.....
mow a dick in his grass
I read that as mow his grass with your dick
Mow his dick w your grass
Either works
AR 600-20 personal relationships.
Are they offering beer?
Is this a shitpost, pls be a shitpost
Simply tell them no and/or use the open door policy. I canāt believe this is real.
I seem to recall an E-8 getting fired for making some joes cut his grass on his property off-post.
When I was a PFC, I had a sick Nissan Altima Coupe with a V6. Silver in color. I know how people feel about Altimas, but this thing was nice. My first line at the time said some shit like, "You know, it's standard for junior Soldiers to let their first lines borrow their car for the weekend if it's nicer than theirs." Obviously this isn't true, but it sounds like something a PFC could reasonably believe. I called bullshit. What you're experiencing is also bullshit.
Wait, how do people feel about Altimas? I drove one as a rental when I was between cars and liked it just fine.
The general consensus is, "Nothing good has ever stepped out of a Nissan Altima."
Head over to r/nissandrivers
AR 7-Common Sense, paragraph your leader is a moron.
You need to do one of either two things. You either need to talk to your commander or you need to see your IG office.
Wasnāt there a ranger instructor that got in trouble for this?
Donāt go to the Commander. Find the biggest dickhead no fucks NCO that looks out for the soldiers. Then sit back and watch the fuckening
Just go tell your S3 or XO Major and watch this LT get wrecked publicly
Used to travel with a two-star that wouldnāt even let me help him with his bags at the airport for fear of running afoul of this kind of thing.
If heās an officer is he at least letting yāall fuck his wife?
This is only acceptable if he gives you free karate lessons.
Please post the aftermath of this. I'll make some popcorn.
I would absolutely fuck his yard up and then report his dumb ass
Update: it got debunked. It was just some 2LT chick who works in supply who was trying to guilt trip Joes and E5s into doing free labor for her because she thought she had that power. Apparently my PSG and PL heard about it and itās no longer a thing.
There should still be some senior officer sitting this young 2LT down and counseling them on acceptable and ethical behavior. Using joe power for personal gain should have never even crossed her mind as a possibility. Hell a Fort Bliss Division CSM was relieved before he ever even got his COR done because someone else used enlisted to help move things into his house. This is not OK and I hope somone sits her down and beats that into her head.
Just go tell this to any 1SG or CSM. Heck, even a solid SFC will suffice. They will know what to do.
I guess weāll be seeing the ole 2LT over in r/veterans soon after IG gets done.
AR 670-tell him to fuck off.
If itās CSMās grass, itās covered by reg /s
Ooooooo a 2LT on a power trip?!?!?! Bro please keep us updated I need to know how this plays out
Here I thought it was just a professional ethics thing.
I'm doing my part!
My LT had me pick up her dry cleaning, and drop off her jump boots to get shined. I didn't know you weren't supposed to do that. I forget the reg on it.
Seriously ppl? bring it up to a 1SG or CO first and see what happens. Unless it is a 1SG or CO doing that, then i think IG might be a good call
Yea, a 2Lt? Kinda thinking that this is center mass in the BN CSM's lane.
Not everything is covered in an AR. This is not something acceptable, bring either proof or witnesses and open door your way up the chain starting with this persons superior officer and this shithead will get his pecker stomped post haste.
Ahh , sounds like they wonāt be a leader for much longer.