AWOL Mom gets discharged

| February 12, 2010

Alexis Hutchison, the single Army Mom who went AWOL with her son to avoid deployment will get an administrative discharge and a reduction in grade as a result. She should get reduced – there’s no excuse for missing movement and going AWOL. But I blame her mother and the father of the child for the rest.

Her mother claimed that she couldn’t handle taking care of her grandson for a year. But she had no problem taking care of twelve other kids in her day care nursury for pay. The father – well, I’ve heard rumors about who he is, but nothing I can put my finger on. He’s as culpable as the grandmother in this. Why wasn’t he trying to find care for the boy instead of putting the 21-year-old mother on the spot.

The Army sees it a little differently;

Larson said the Army had evidence that Hutchinson, regardless of her family situation, would have resisted deploying “by any means.” He said commanders decided a court-martial would be too disruptive to the Army, requiring soldiers now in Afghanistan to return to the U.S. to testify.

“This case wasn’t about a soldier having to choose between her duty to the nation and her family,” Larson said. “There is evidence both from Pvt. Hutchinson and her fellow soldiers to indicate she had no intentions of deploying.”

Sussman denied that Hutchinson was exploiting her status as a single-mom to get out of going to Afghanistan.

As I pointed out before, Hutchison’s idiot lawyer is from the Branum-chaired Military Law Task Force and just interned last summer at the National Lawyers Guild, the Communist front organization for barristers.

We’ve tried to do right by you, our readers, but for some reason, our usually reliable contacts at the Army’s PAO didn’t return our calls on this one.

Thanks to Jerry920 for the link.

Category: James Branum, Military issues, Usual Suspects

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. TSO says:

    She got an other than honorable, right?

    So at least she won’t be polluting the VA. This whole thing pisses me off. Army should have tried this malingering %^#@*(#@.

  2. Adirondack Patriot says:

    This is what happens when an armed service becomes a social service. The issue of single parents in the military needs to be assessed honestly and courageously.

    The article says she is no longer in a relationship with the father. So what? The relationship that matters is the father’s relationship with the son. She won’t have to live with the father, the child will.

    Make the father take HIS child and deploy her. If not, put the child in foster care until she returns from performing the duty she took an oath to fulfill.

  3. fm2176 says:

    This is exactly why you can’t join the active Army as a single parent. In my current job one of the first things people ask is if they would have to deploy. I conduct a good “Army interview”, explain all the benefits of service, and tell them that there is a very good chance of deploying. Lots of interest in the pay, benefits, lifestyle, etc. Bring up deployments and they lose all interest or ask about ways to avoid them. Unfortunately, there are probably a number of other people in uniform craving the job skills, pay and education the military can offer while doing all they can to avoid having to deploy with their brothers and sisters.

    It’s been a while since I deployed, but anyone who has joined since 2002 should expect to see at least a year in Southwest Asia. When I was in Kuwait in February 2003 we had some Soldiers complaining about having only joined for the college money. These guys had joined before 9/11 when the Army was a bit more stable and the last thing they expected was to be in Afghanistan less than a year later and Iraq soon after that. Despite the bitching they still deployed, did their job as Infantrymen, and some even stayed in after we got home.

    As for parents being parents, and grandparents putting their children and grandchildren before themselves, I hardly expect it anymore. Men get what they want and disappear, leaving the woman to cope with the consequences. Women do what they have to, and occasionally see the outcome as a way to work the system (as in this case, as well as some welfare mothers). Grandparents either help or they don’t, some raising the grandchild themselves, others distancing themselves from both child and grandchild, and many attempting to have a “normal” relationship with their family. While there are still many traditional families, in many areas single mothers are the norm, and I have seen too many birth certificates where the father’s name is a bunch of asterisks.

  4. Debra says:

    Militaristic values are incompatible with motherhood. The children are the ones who suffer and it is a great social loss to our entire culture. Unfortunately, I see no hope of this reversing itself, but there is hope if at least a few people don’t lose sight of what the core problem is.

  5. OldCavLt says:

    The problem is that the ARMY has lost sight of what the “core problem” is.

    This is the same kind of PC leadership that led to building a Hasan. Have we learned NOTHING?

    Lock mommy up for 20 years for desertion. That ends the problem, sets an example with a message to others thinking like she is, and her child will not have the victim mentality inculcated into his or her brain to the point where they, well, turn out like Hutchinson.

    The military has lost sight of what they are supposed to be. As a result, we can’t even stare sown a lowlife like Hutchinson or the first slimeball that tried this, and got an honorable for her trouble, one Lisa Pagan.

    is it any wonder our enemies around the world have lost respect for us?

  6. NHSparky says:

    OldCav–sadly, this ain’t a new problem. I remember single moms getting admin discharges back in the early 90’s for being “non-deployable”.

  7. Debra says:

    The situation doesn’t meet the elements of proof for desertion. Fortunately, we have a UCMJ so that people with extreme militaristic views like yours do not set the standards.

  8. NHSparky says:

    Okay, Debra–then you’ll be so kind as to explain to all us “extremists” why we have to pick up the slack when someone doesn’t feel like fulfilling their commitment anymore.

  9. Debra says:

    You have to pick up the slack for anyone who is not fulfilling their obligations in the military. That’s not a reason for locking them up for 20 years.

    My opinion – besides that I think militaristic values are detrimental to mothers and children and result in a coarsening and degradation of our culture and values -is that the military should develop a different policy with regard to women based on the experience of the past several decades and on the needs of the military.

    Do I think that is going to ever happen? No.

  10. Jen says:

    If AWOL and Desertion were supposed to be the same then they wouldn’t need two different charges. Basicaly it hinges on desire to never return and different scenarios change the burden of proof. The desire to throw the book at someone never ceases to amuse me (or at least the changing standards of application).

    Here is a pretty general explanation of the difference Sparky.

  11. NHSparky says:

    Debra–she signed on the line. Period, end of story. If she didn’t like the possibility of becoming a resident of the Kansas Gravel Factory, she shouldn’t have been making babies with a Senior NCO–who, IMHO, bears just as much responsibility.
    And Jen, perhaps you should know of which you speak before you pipe in. Ever heard of Article 87?

  12. Jen says:

    whoa there Sparky, I’m real sorry I crossed your legal prowess. I assume you went to the Branum School of Law, yes?

    Let me try to see if my dumb ass can break it down, let me know if I do it correctly.

    Cav said: Lock mommy up for 20 years for desertion.
    Jonn wrote a post called: AWOL Mom gets discharged

    The Army filed 4 separate charges against her including missing movement, AWOL, dereliction of duty, and insubordinate conduct.

    Do you see Desertion in there? Let me know, my eyes may just not have the legal training yours do.

    Maximum punishments:

    AWOL: 18 months
    Missing a Movement: 2 years
    Desertion: (3) In time of war. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

    Maybe you were just being a stickler for detail so let me correct my assertion:
    If AWOL, Missing a Movement and Desertion were supposed to be the same then they wouldn’t need three different charges.

  13. justplainjason says:

    Sparky I agree with your position on the father. Where in the hell is he in all of this? Why didn’t he or his mother and father have to step up? Honestly I hope he lost a stripe over this, because he should have had a family care plan also.

  14. TSO says:

    Just get her the F out. At this point she’ll spend her life in a jail of her own making. She’s a loser, a degenerate, a shitty parent, a poor choice of mates and a gazillion other things. Just give her the OTH and get her the fug out.

  15. NHSparky says:

    I’m sorry, did I cause you to get all butt-hurt, Jen? BTW–those punishments are typically peacetime recommendations (except for the desertion which you pointed out–then again, we haven’t stood anyone up in front of a firing squad since 1945.) Maybe you haven’t noticed, but we’ve got a little war thingy going on for the last eight-plus years. So no, I really don’t feel badly for her, unless she joined pre-9/11, which would have made her about 12 at the time. Should she get 20 years? That was never my intention, but she SHOULD have done some time in the Greybar Hotel. Just sayin. Ya’ll want the same “rights”, but don’t want to do the same heavy lifting when TSHTF? Sorry, I’m not buying the sob story, and I’m not buying your excusing her behavior or actions. She knew very early on that 1–deploying was part of the deal, 2–the UCMJ ain’t the most forgiving system, 3–blowing off your command ranks high on the list of no-no’s when one is a PFC, and (most importantly) 4–you don’t fuck your buddies over–EVER.

  16. TSO says:

    She violated every rule in the book, and clearly has no thought to consequences beyond the immediate.

  17. NHSparky says:

    TSO–clearly the shitter needs to be flushed along with this turd, but not before a year or two of pondering her future plight. Betcha grandma wouldn’t have had a problem taking care of the kid while Hutchinson cooled her heels long after her unit returned from the ‘Stan. It would have also served as a “motivator” to those considering similar action; you know the old expression of, “You can either be a shining example, or a horrible warning.”

  18. Jen says:

    Sparky what the heck are you talking about? You don’t make any sense and you can’t stay on topic.

    Let me say it simple: Cav said she should get 20 years. She can’t get 20 years because she wasn’t charged with and convicted of desertion.

    I gave you a link to explain the question you had for Debra who made a point that it was extreme to call for desertion and 20 years. It is a matter of law. That is all I was talking about.

    Try not to add in anything else I didn’t say about excuses, rights, blah blah blah. You are like a gossiper who makes shit up that no one said. I guess you call it butt hurt when someone makes a point you don’t understand.

  19. NHSparky says:

    Get bent, Jen. I’m not the one who can’t read–look upthread and you’ll see I never brought up the difference between desertion and AWOL until YOU did.

  20. LL says:

    Personally, I think this is just and fair. She won’t be hanging on in the military, sucking up resources and now, she gets to face the cruel world right now of NO jobs available and bosses who don’t even like you to be a little late if your kid puked all over you on the way out the door. I suspect she was a clerk of some type and got a lot of slack because she was a single mom in the military and now, she gets to see what real life is like without military base daycares, base housing, commissary prices, and understanding coworkers. She’s got a long row to hoe with having no job and very few skills and a billion people to compete against for that minimum wage job. Whatever state she’s from, you residents get to support another woe-is-me welfare mom. Congratulations.

  21. Jen says:

    Wow, bent? Really? Are you at Orange Julius right now too?

  22. Thanks for that link.
    Yes, it seems like she herself comes from a dysfunctional background. Her Mom is a real piece of work. It’s probably a good thing she’s not going to be involved in her grandson’s life. As for her choices, the first one was deciding to have sex without birth control, the second was hooking up with a guy who should have gotten a vasectomy when he turned 18. Why he didn’t have his butt dragged through this as well is a mystery too.

  23. Virtual Insanity says:

    U.S. Army core competencies, distilled version:

    1) Close with and destroy the enemies of the United States;

    2) Support/train those who do.

    Anybody see “support single mommy” there? Not even “Support single daddy.”

    Debra, you said, “I think militaristic values are detrimental to mothers and children and result in a coarsening and degradation of our culture and values -is that the military should develop a different policy with regard to women based on the experience of the past several decades and on the needs of the military”

    Is it a value of the United States to be safe? Do militaristic values contribute to that? What “different policy with regard to women” would you recommend that meets the core competencies above?

  24. Green Thumb says:

    National sentiment and widespread love and devotion of/to this country are things of the past..

    People publicly support the troops but backpedal if their son, daughter, lifestyle, or entitlment status has or is affected by deployments or indirect participation in the war.

    People will get in line to take what they can get but when the time comes to “step up to the plate”, the ranks thin…

    Strange how that works.

  25. *You produced some decent points there. I looked on the internet for the problem and identified most individuals will go along with along with your site.