Army Retains SFC Martland

| April 29, 2016 | 50 Comments

Martland

Jonn and I have written previously about SFC Charles Martland and the attempt by the Army to separate him for “assaulting” a child-rapist in Afghanistan.  The earlier articles can be found here, here, here, and here.

According to Fox News, the Army yesterday changed its mind. They have now opted to retain SFC Martland vice discharging him.

Sometimes sanity reigns – even inside that 5-sided asylum near the Open Air Brothel on the Potomac – and the good guys win one.  IMO this is such a case.

Congratulations, SFC Martland.  Kudos to Rep. Duncan Hunter (and others) for publicly supporting him.

And while SFC Martland never should have been considered for discharge in the first place, kudos also to the Army for finally seeing the light and doing the right thing here.

Category: Big Army, Military issues, Politics, Real Soldiers

Comments (50)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. In The Mailbox: 04.29.16 : The Other McCain | April 29, 2016
  1. MustangCryppie says:

    Outfuckingstanding!!!!

  2. Airdale (AW) USN says:

    That’s good news!!

  3. Usafvet509 says:

    The question now is, will he stay past this enlistment? After getting royally shit on for doing his job?

    • Hondo says:

      Pretty sure the Army went to VOL INDEF terms for SNCOs some years ago – at the 10 year point, if I recall correctly. Unless that’s changed, I don’t think he’ll need to reenlist.

      He may, however, have to worry about future QMP/QSP boards if he chooses to stay, and this whole mess certainly hasn’t improved his long-term career prospects. Frankly, I’m not sure what I’d do were I in his situation.

      Personally, I hope he stays. The Army – and all the services – need men like him.

      • Luddite4change says:

        It will be interning to know what the Army Boards Review Agency decided, did they remove the LOR and NCOER, and restore his SF tab? Or, find some other reason to over turn the QMP?

        The answer to those questions will determine his future service.

        • Hondo says:

          From the linked article:

          “In SFC Martland’s case, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records determination modified a portion of one of SFC Martland’s evaluation reports and removed him from the QMP list, which will allow him to remain in the Army,” said Lt. Col. Jerry Pionk.

          Doesn’t say anything about the GOMR. That could still be there; might have been moved to the restricted fiche; or the spokesman’s description of what was done might be incomplete, and it may have also been modified or removed. We’d have to see a redacted version of the decision to be sure.

          The decision should eventually be posted to the AF Boards site that contains redacted BCMR decisions, though that will likely take a while. When it’s posted it should be fairly easy to recognize, even in redacted form. (smile)

          • Luddite4Change says:

            The Restricted File is looked at now days for QMP and officer retention, so I’d have to wonder what was done. It’s entirely possible that the ABRA found a procedural error which negated the NCOER and GOMAR. Unfortunately, if that was the case, the results might not get posted as the decision could be considered “administrative” in nature.

  4. Sapper3307 says:

    My money says he has a big red X permanently on the cover of his 201 file.

  5. MrBill says:

    It can be painful for a large organization to pull its head out of its ass. Glad to see it happen here.

  6. CCO says:

    Chalk one up for the god guys.

  7. NR Pax says:

    The fact that a group of high-ranking people has to actually figure out that beating up a child rapist is a good thing to do says awful things about our country.

    I hope he stays in but I am willing to bet that his career is going to go nowhere because he made people look bad.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      SFC Martland was only doing what American Soldiers are allegedly supposed to do in the world, defending innocents from a predator. At least, that’s what I always heard American Soldiers are supposed to do. It’s clear the Glorious Leader & co. never got that message, since they seem to think that a Soldier’s duties are things like embracing alternate (especially aberrant) lifestyles, being overly sensitive to cultures that enslave women and rape children (“social justice” my Black Irish ass), and not shooting back when they take fire.

      SFC Martland should’ve killed that sack of shit in whatever manner he deemed appropriate. His superiors should’ve commended him for it if they said anything at all. Whatever happened to “De Opreso Liber?” Don’t any of those assholes know what it means, or do they just want some meaningless Latin shit to look cool up on the wall?

  8. David M Dennis says:

    You can rest assured the fuckery has not ended…while, possibly not overt, he faces a tough go ahead. Someone, somewhere is nursing a hard one for him.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      Likely somebody who plans on career advancement at their Soldiers’ expense under a Hildabeast administration. The notion that this crap comes from so-called “leaders” is appalling.

      • HMC Ret says:

        TOW: I’m surprised the Army could find someone with a set to do the right thing. A little /sarc there. Just a little. But, yes, hard road, especially if Hillary gets elected. I look for even more of a purge than we have seen under Obama. The Army probably didn’t do this because it was the right thing to do, which it was, but because of the tremendous political pressure. Maybe some senior officers felt THEIR promotions would be held up down the road if they continued to throw this warrior under the bus.

    • MustangCryppie says:

      But he can still in the mirror and be proud of what he sees, unlike the political tucked who may torment him.

  9. 68W58 says:

    It would have been better if the headline read “Army promotes and decorates SFC Martland”, but this is better than the alternative.

  10. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I will not credit the Army with righting this grave wrong. Hell, the Army created the problem in the first place and was eager to boot him. It was the pressure brought to bear on the knuckleheads in the Pentagon by ordinary Americans, a pol or two (Duncan Hunter) and even a Hollywooder (Harvey Keitel) that prompted the reversal.

  11. jonp says:

    I’m sure this decision will be splashed on all the news sights, networks and papers like the original story was.

  12. B Woodman says:

    Did the Perfumed Princes in the Five Sided Puzzle Palace correct this wrong against SFC Martland because:

    1) It was the Right Thing To Do?
    2) They retreated from all the blowback?

    If I were a bettin’ man, I’d bet a paycheck swap on #2.

    • Hondo says:

      So would I, BW. But for whatever reason, they ended up doing the right thing.

      I’ll give them credit for the latter, regardless of the reason. They could have been bull-headed and refused to change their original decision.

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    Someone somewhere decided that keeping Martland for a while was better than dumping him. I doubt he’d have had any problem finding private sector employment, but there is always that story waiting to be told. Now the people who wanted to hang him have to hold onto him until he decides whether to stay or go. Whatever, this will fade into the background and no longer be a public issue. And he’ll still have that story to tell some day.

  14. BinhTuy66 says:

    Off subject, Marine claim:

    An acquaintance claims to have served in “Force Recon Company(?)” approx 1969 to early 70’s era, Vietnam. States his Company was separate from Bn. Perhaps 3rd Company?

    He claims a three year enlistment(?), went to Boot/advanced(?) then straight to Recon and Vietnam. A couple of his claims include Recon insertions via jumping from OV-10 Bronco, and completing 85 to 95 jumps during his enlistment. (Seems like a lot of jumps.)

    I was not a Marine nor Force Recon. Can anyone refer me to somewhere for help? Is there a roster of Force Recon Marines I could refer to or refer this guy? I don’t have enough for a FOIA. Any help would be appreciated.

    • Pinto Nag says:

      Folks on here will certainly help you, and you can also go to the top of the page, go to the Contact Page, and talk directly with Jonn — that way your question/request doesn’t get lost in the current thread.

    • Claw says:

      “Recon insertions via jumping from OV-10 Bronco”? That’s a pretty good laugher (at least to me).

      Let’s see, now, I’m not a fixed wing guy, but I think it would entail at a minimum a open canopy barrel roll at stall speed. That must be, to say the least, a very “interesting” maneuver.

      This needs to be carried over to the Weekend Open Thread (once Jonn posts it up) for further discussion.

    • IDC SARC says:

      BinTuy66

      Look up “Doc” Bruce Norton. He was there in ‘nam as a Recon Corpsman during that time and wrote books about it. He would be IMO the authority on such an inquiry.

    • jonp says:

      85-95 Combat jumps? That’s a lot of combat jumps especially from a Bronco but I’m not an expert.

  15. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    I could have SWORN I heard a loud *POP*, was it the Army temporarily pulling its head out of its collective ass?

  16. borderbill says:

    This happies me up (in re SFC Martland)—We’re gonna need all the good guys when things change (and the good guys will change things).

  17. Celtic Thunder says:

    All that I can say It’s about time that the Army did what is correct. “De Oppresso Liber” my brother!

  18. Green Thumb says:

    Its about time the Army got one right.

    What a waste of time and money.

    I am surprised they did not re-allocate the time, resources and money into trying to screw this man into a study of how to integrate transgender bathrooms in the barracks.

    You know, the important things.

    Glad I am out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *