Jamie Renee Waltrip; phony combat NCO

| February 13, 2018 | 97 Comments

Someone sent us their work on this Jamie Renee Waltrip person. She claims that she was a staff sergeant in the Army and that she served on deployments to the war on terror;

The last picture is from a slide show she made for her church group during a Veterans’ Day presentation claiming that it’s her on patrol. The picture is actually from Getty Images and it is a picture of Lance Corporal Kristi Baker on patrol with 1/8th Marines in Afghanistan and used in several media articles, like this one from Fox News;

Waltrip was in the Army for 2 years and four months, she made E-3 once but she was busted a few months before her early discharge to Private E-2. Waltrip was a medic with the 172nd Support Battalion in Alaska, but she never deployed to the GWOT;

Category: Phony soldiers

Comments (97)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ex-PH2 says:

    About time we got a female faker in here. AND she was an Army medic.

    I hope she isn’t practicing anything now but honky tonk songs in a cheap bar. (Is that a cheap shot?)

  2. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Another one who shit all over a perfectly shitty record of service.

  3. Wilted Willy says:

    Ex, you finally got one for your team! Too bad she had to be another pos phony pony! Why do these asshats do this shit? Christ, just be proud that you served, every job and MOS is important!! You were a member of the greatest fighting force to ever be, just be proud of that and don’t soil it with lying bullshit! End of Rant!

  4. FatCircles0311 says:

    If I had a stack of pancakes for every phony that looks like they ate a Marine…

  5. chooee lee says:

    I wonder why she didn’t claim to be the first Secret Squirrel female Navy Seal ?

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Simple: she probably thinks that’s only open to men. She hasn’t heard about the Navy’s biggest secret squirrel thing just yet. Give me a few weeks. I’ll get it finished.

  6. MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

    ERROR: Jamie Renee Waltrip

    CORRECTION: Jamie Renee Walrus

    Nothing further … OUT!

  7. Bobo says:

    It looks like she didn’t make it as an imagery analyst and the Army sent her to be a medic instead.

    It also looks like she went backwards on the advancements, starting as an E-3 and leaving as an E-1. What I don’t understand is the GCM on the FOIA request.

  8. USAFRetired says:

    If I read the ERB correctly, you washed out as an Imagery Analyst so they made her a Medic in her short career.

    Two thoughts come to mind, she was unable to master blobology, or she was unable to obtain the higher level security clearance required of an intel type.

    • USAFRetired says:

      How does one rate an Army Good Conduct Medal in a 2 yr 4 month enlistment that includes a bust from E-3 to E-2?

      • Jonn Lilyea says:

        Some commanders get rated on the number of GCMs awarded in their units.

        • Graybeard says:

          The problem with metrics is you either get more of what you measure, or less – depending on how it impacts folks jobs.

          People will always work to improve their career chances. At least until they get to be old curmudgeons like me. But then I work to improve my boss’ and employees’ career chances – so same same.

      • Hondo says:

        I think her enlistment was originally for longer than 2yr 4mo. The DD214 indicates “Member has not completed first full term of service.” Unfortunately, she did make 24 mo so she might well be eligible for some VA bennies.

        Regarding the GCM, that puzzles me too. I’d guess either it was awarded via admin error or Jonn’s right in his comment above.

        • MrBill says:

          Perhaps the bust(s) were for reasons other than misconduct, such as inefficiency/unsatisfactory performance.

          • Hondo says:

            Possible, I guess. But twice? My impression is that type of reduction is fairly rare to begin with.

            She doesn’t seem to have any lost time, though, so whatever got her busted almost certainly wasn’t AWOL. It appears she had no lost time as of Sep 2002 and was promoted between then and her discharge in Feb 2003 – which implies none during that time frame, either.

        • thebesig says:

          Originally posted by Hondo:

          Regarding the GCM, that puzzles me too. I’d guess either it was awarded via admin error or Jonn’s right in his comment above.

          From AR 600-8-22, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-5c:

          “c. For first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.”

          Depending on her specific situation, it could be this part of the regulation, it could be what Jonn said above regarding how many GCM’s are awarded, or if could be an administrative error like what you said.

          • Hondo says:

            I’m fully aware of that provision of 600-8-22; that’s the provision of the reg under which USAR and ARNG personnel ordered to AD for 1 year are awarded a GCM. However, the individual’s conduct and performance during that reduced period of service must still meet the criteria specified in para 4-6.

            While it’s true that per the reg reduction under NJP is not automatically disqualifying, my experience is that multiple such reductions during a single 3-year period are. A reduction due to inability or inefficiency vice misconduct would likewise run afoul of para 4-6c. And any court-martial conviction automatically terminates eligibility, with a new period starting after sentence is complete.

            Bottom line: IMO either her unit commander “gave her a freebie” by signing off on a highly-questionable GCM or it was awarded due to admin error. I can’t see any way someone with multiple reductions in grade for cause during a 1-year period would be eligible to receive a GCM under the criteria for qualifying service listed in para 4-6. And I don’t believe we had any kind of RIFs going on for junior enlisted personnel during 2001-2003, so any reduction in grade would have to have been for cause.

            • thebesig says:

              Hondo: I’m fully aware of that provision of 600-8-22;

              I provided both the regulation, and the applicable section of the regulation, on the account that you’ve identified as having an Army background. This is based on your previous statements on this website. With someone that doesn’t have an Army background, I would’ve simply pointed out what the Army allows for. :mrgreen:

              Hondo: that’s the provision of the reg under which USAR and ARNG personnel ordered to AD for 1 year are awarded a GCM.

              The section that I provided is also applicable to Regular Army. Since the first award can be for a time period between 1 and 3 years, they would have to be on the applicable active duty for more than 1 year.

              Hondo: However, the individual’s conduct and performance during that reduced period of service must still meet the criteria specified in para 4-6.

              And, the circumstances surrounding her service is a mystery to the majority of us here. What is posted above, with regards to her record, is insufficient to determine the true nature of her entire service. Her reserve obligation date is all zeroed out, with a terminal rank of E2. So, were looking at a possible Article 15 somewhere along the line.

              From AR 600-8-22, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-6c:

              “c. While any record of nonjudicial punishment could be in conflict with recognizing the soldiers service as exemplary, such record should not be viewed as automatically disqualifying. The commander will analyze the record, giving consideration to the nature of the infraction, the circumstances under which it occurred and when:”

              This gives the commander a lot of discretion on whether the circumstances related to the nonjudicial punishment will go against the criteria or not for awarding the AGCM.

              Originally posted by Hondo:

              While it’s true that per the reg reduction under NJP is not automatically disqualifying, my experience is that multiple such reductions during a single 3-year period are. A reduction due to inability or inefficiency vice misconduct would likewise run afoul of para 4-6c.

              Bottom line: IMO either her unit commander “gave her a freebie” by signing off on a highly-questionable GCM or it was awarded due to admin error. I can’t see any way someone with multiple reductions in grade for cause during a 1-year period would be eligible to receive a GCM under the criteria for qualifying service listed in para 4-6. And I don’t believe we had any kind of RIFs going on for junior enlisted personnel during 2001-2003, so any reduction in grade would have to have been for cause.

              Again, we don’t know the specifics of her record, or the specifics surrounding her rank reductions. Her record shows a couple of reductions in rank, not multiple. This could either be two NJPs, or one NJP and one administrative reduction. Here’s the breakdown of when those rank reductions occurred:

              Assignments (recent first):

              * MMM DD + 1, 2003 — February 2, 2003: Separations (?)
              * July 12, 2002 — MMM DD, 2003: 0046 CS HQ LT MAINT [Promoted: E2]
              * April 23, 2002 — July 11, 2002: 0172 CS MEDICAL COS [Demoted: E1]
              * August 14, 2001 — April 22, 2002: 0046 CS HQ LT MAINT [Demoted: E2]

              Ranks (recent first):

              PV2: November 1, 2002
              PV1: May 5, 2002
              PV2: December 6, 2001
              PFC: October 5, 2001

              This falls on the commanding officer doing the review of her record. From AR 600-8-22, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-6c:

              “The commander will analyze the record, giving consideration to the nature of the infraction, the circumstances under which it occurred and when:”

              With these two reductions, not knowing if both are a result of NJP or not, this part of the provision allows a lot of discretion to the commander. He or she would know the circumstances surrounding the reductions, and when, and measure that against the totality of her service to determine if she warranted an AGCM or not.

              Since the reductions occurred under two different units, with two different commanders, the following provision has an influence on her situation:

              “The lack of official disqualifying comment by previous commanders does not disqualify use of award period by the current commander for awarding the AGCM” — AR 600-8-22, Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-4.

              There’s a good chance that the first commander that reduced her rank didn’t disqualify her from receiving the AGCM. This was followed by her later commander looking at her total performance under his command, as well as under previous commands.

              Hondo: And any court-martial conviction automatically terminates eligibility, with a new period starting after sentence is complete.

              Agreed, which doesn’t appear to be the case with Phony War Veteran Jamie Waltrip. This is just based on what is posted above.

              Absent more detailed information on Phony War Veteran Jamie Waltrip, one of the three scenarios that I pointed out could be possible.

              • MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

                Do I need to separate you two?

              • Hondo says:

                MCPO: not necessary.

                thebesig: thank you for agreeing with me. Essentially, you’re saying above that her unit commander could have cut her a break and approved her for a highly questionable GCM. I never said that was impossible. In fact, that’s precisely one of the two scenarios I postulated above. The other is admin error; that also remains plausible.

                I say that because the individual was reduced in grade twice within a one-year period. While a unit commander does indeed have the authority to ignore that and approve the award anyway (provided none of the reductions resulted from a court-martial conviction), such an award on it’s face is indeed highly unusual as well as highly suspect.

                As far as I know, there are three plausible ways such a reduction in grade could happen. They are NJP (by far the most likely); admin reduction due to inefficiency or inability to perform; or as part of a court-martial sentence. All three of those reasons for reduction require either substandard performance or misconduct on the part of the individual concerned.

                A single reduction due to any of those three reasons is sufficient cause to DQ someone for the GCM because their conduct or performance doesn’t meet the criteria specified in AR 600-8-22, para 4-6. Multiple reductions during a qual period? That makes receipt of a GCM for that same period highly suspect. In the case at hand, in essence it means her unit commander “cut her a huge break” and awarded her a highly suspect GCM. I believe I said above that was one possibility.

                A couple of other points.

                1. There is no definitive evidence as to source of the individual’s reductions. Therefore, although less likely than NJP, based on what we know a court-martial conviction as source of one or both of those grade reductions cannot be ruled out. That’s why I mentioned court-martial convictions and their effect on GCM eligibility above. However, nowhere above did I suggest the individual had indeed been convicted by any court-martial.

                2. “Multiple” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “consisting of, including, or involving more than one”. Last time I checked, two is indeed “more than one”. Ergo, two reductions in grade, by definition, is correctly referred to as “multiple reductions”.

                • thebesig says:

                  Hondo, thanks for seeing that you and I never really had a disagreement in the first place. :mrgreen:

                  When I said this:

                  “Depending on her specific situation, it could be this part of the regulation, it could be what Jonn said above regarding how many GCM’s are awarded, or if could be an administrative error like what you said.” – thebesig

                  I added a third possibility that strengthened the argument in favor of what both Jonn and you pointed out regarding the commander’s actions. I was essentially “closing the argument” regarding that possibility, as well as on your comment regarding her commander’s actions if he did indeed decided on approving her for the AGCM despite the circumstances related to her reductions.

                  Also, when I added that we didn’t know the circumstances to her reduction, I wasn’t dismissing the possibilities that you pointed out. I pointed out some of the possibilities, and you pointed out the others. Where you pointed out the reductions she had within the 1 year, I pointed out the possible “technicality” that her commander used to go ahead and award her the AGCM. No disagreement with what you pointed out there. I simply went into depth regarding the AGCM part.

                  He’d really be putting his neck on the chopping board if he awarded her an AGCM if she had a court martial. In both the active and reserve units that I was in, the administrative staff was detailed with regards to screening records for the AGCM or ARCAM. The commanders were too busy to do the checking themselves. They choose to receive the information on a silver platter if they had time, or just a list of names they could sign off on.

                  If she had a court martial, and got rewarded an AGCM despite that fact, it could be revoked. If this were the case, that would be awesome to see. :mrgreen:

                  Absent specifics related to her case, we’re left with scratching our heads and thinking up of possibilities like administrative errors (magically showing up on their record), blindly pushing AGCM lists through for approval, or technicalities in the regulation that allowed her commander to “drive a truck through a loophole”.

                  As for the multiple, the trend, among the definitions in your link, is to describe a group that includes more than one. For example, “twins”, “triplets”, “litter”, “clutch”, etc, to describe a “batch” of newborns/young ones. Also, the definition in the link implies indefinite(or unknown) number of something that starts with a second count, or a group of components (any number) within a system.

                  When I mentioned “a couple” I was using something that’s commonly used to describe “two” of something. :mrgreen: I was going for “specificity”. :mrgreen:

  9. FuzeVT says:

    I’m left wondering if there is at least depraved person here at TAH that would hit that. . .

  10. Combat Historian says:

    The dumb ex-Army poser broad shows a photo of a female Marine in MARPATS/Marine PASGT helmet/Marine BA LBE on patrol and claims that’s her???

    FFS, at least find a stock photo of a deployed female from your own service !!!

    This phony poserette is not too smart in the brain matters department…

  11. NHSparky says:

    Shitcanned after 2 years and looks like she’s well into dependa status.

  12. Flakpup says:

    But wait! It’s the GWOT… Global War on Terror… the US is on the globe… therefore being in the US means she deployed to the GWOT… although I’m not sure this rocket scientist could even find the US on a globe.

  13. crucible says:

    Equality means we must have female participation in the stoeln valor dishonor olympics, and by golly, we’re getting there!

    (Too bad its only 75% of men’s dishonor.)

  14. Yef says:

    Officer material, right there.

  15. 26Limabeans says:

    Nice photo. “touch the pearls”

  16. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    Army 2, Seals Zip.

  17. Carlton G. Long says:

    Sadly, I would…

  18. MrBill says:

    Looks like she was busted twice. Per her ERB, she had been a PFC, but was busted to E-2 on 20011206, and was busted to E-1 on 20020507. Then, per her 214, they let her have her E-2 stripe back on 20021101.

  19. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    “Hi. My name is Jamie. Can I get you anything?”

    “Yeah. Another medic.”

  20. Graybeard says:

    She makes our 3rd female phony to date. 34 total phonies so far.

    She checks off on the following boxes:
    Phony combat
    female
    real service
    early out
    overweight

  21. Twist says:

    Damn it. A phony from my beloved 172nd. It would be hard for her to have deployed with us since she got shit canned in 2003 and the 172nd SBCT didn’t deploy until August 2005. Hell, only about 6,000 of us Army wide are authorized the 172nd combat patch.

    • Combat Historian says:

      She was part of the 172d advanced advance party looking for suitable brigade bivouacking and beddown sites. But since she went in before we even invaded, she had to infiltrate into Iraq disguised as an overweight female camel…

  22. Sparks says:

    Real chock bock this one.

  23. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    “SHOOT IT BEFORE IT MATES AND LAYS EGGS!!!”

  24. Atkron says:

    I hear that Jesus guy really likes it when you lie in his house.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      I’ve kinda heard that myself, I wonder what would happen to her reputation if her Church found out she was lying…

    • Graybeard says:

      I am astounded at the stupidity of those who claim to be Christians and then lie or otherwise engage in a pattern of actions contrary to Christian behavior.

      Not that any Christians ever have gotten beyond temptation and an inclination to sin while still on this earth, but egregious and willful sinning is another matter.

      But then, given the doctrinal standings of some churches/denominations – saying that active homosexual behavior is ok and celebrating a “Transfiguration Sunday” for when a transsexual decides to become the opposite of what they were born to be, or even Obama’s “pastor” and his “liberation theology” and anti-white rhetoric – then I suppose there may be some “church” somewhere that doesn’t care that someone lies about things.

      As for me, I align with what Johnny Cash said: “My arms are too short to box with God.”

  25. Martinjmpr says:

    WRT the GCM, GCM awards are wonky, as I know from personal experience.

    Maybe some S-1 or PAC type can jump in here but my recollection is that there is something in the automated record keeping system that generates GCM awards.

    My understanding is that a GCM is sort of an “opt-out” type of thing, IOW, a GCM is automatically awarded once certain criteria are met unless some affirmative action is taken by the COC to prevent the award of the GCM.

    I was erroneously awarded a GCM after my last unit’s deployment to the Middle East. Here’s what happened: Army regs allow the award of a GCM for 1 year of active Federal service for Reserve Component Soldiers who are mobilized to active duty if they serve at least 1 full year.

    Our deployment was just under a year (we were mobilized on 01/03/2004 and REFRAD’d on 12/16/2004) but there were 4 of us in the battery who never took mid-tour leave, 3 NCO’s and one officer. Since we didn’t take mid-tour leave we ended up with about 24 days of terminal leave which pushed us over the 1 year mark and thus qualified the three enlisted members for the GCM.

    However, the rule that authorizes this only applies if the soldier has never been awarded a GCM before (which is normally the case with Reserve Component soldiers who have never done a full 3 year tour on active duty.) The other two NCO’s had never served on active duty so they were properly awarded a GCM. But I had served almost 10 years of AD and had 3 GCM’s already so my award had to be revoked later.

    On active duty a GCM can only be awarded after 3 years of service but I think that if soldier’s term ends early for reasons other than discipline (medical, for example), the GCM can still be awarded and my guess is that’s how hers got onto her record.

    • Hondo says:

      Can’t say for 2001-2003, but you’re correct for the early 1980s regarding the processing of award of the GCM. PAC would send a roster of those pending GCM eligibility soon (I think it came from SIDPERS), and the unit CO would have to take action to prevent anyone on the list from receiving their GCM – and also be prepared to specify why that individual should NOT receive their GCM.

      However, in this individual’s case even an early discharge for medical reasons almost certainly shouldn’t have resulted in her receiving a GCM. Even for early discharges between 1 and 3 years or for medical purposes, the full period of service has to meet the behavioral criteria specified in AR 600-8-22, para 4-6.

      The individual had multiple reductions-in-rank during a 1-year period. Multiple reductions under Article 15s withing a year would almost certainly violate that criteria – not automatic, but multiples seem to do the trick. Ditto multiple reductions for inefficiency or inability (para 4-6c). And any court-martial conviction would invalidate a period of service of 3 years or less.

      Bottom line: IMO, either she was cut slack by her unit CO on a very questionable GCM or it was awarded through admin error.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        Hondo,

        Sounds right for mid-80s. SIDPERS clerk dumps the potential recipient roster. Authority was delegated to the Company commander to issue the award and orders. The subsequently came through the Battalion awards clerk for processing, usually with everyone, 1-3 months worth, on one order.

        Easy-peasy for someone with minor but disqualifying infractions to get overlooked. Correction revocation amendment orders were occasionally observed.

        Likewise, I can think of a case or two when a particularly agile but un-busted shitbird was repeatedly “overlooked” and not awarded.

  26. Frankie Cee says:

    Another piece of shit, asshole, standing in the blood of those better than her, in a pathetic attempt to grab some limelight. Jamie Renee Waltrip, you missed the limelight, but the Neon glow of Goooooogle has your name up and shining, for all to see. Every time you generate a comment that uses your name, you will become even more deeply etched in the annals of Gooogle, and in the anus of history.

  27. 19D3OR4 - Smitty says:

    She probably thinks the 101BSB is at Campbell too. (FYI it is the BSB for the Devil Brigade of the 1ID)

  28. Friend says:

    Shared JAMIE RENEE WALTRIP photo with friends. Couldn’t get a woody even with VIAGRA and a bag over her face…

  29. Green Thumb says:

    Another substandard discharge.

    Must be the PTSD.

    This individual looks transgender.

  30. Combat3C0 says:

    I’d hit that, but I would have to have a couple of combat bottles of soju before, during,& after the act!

  31. no says:

    all you people need to stfu, shes not a phony. her daughter is next to me reading the comments you guys are leaving. all i have to say is if you didnt know her dont talk about her like that.

Leave a Reply

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