PDA

View Full Version : Is it a UCMJ Violation for a Military Member to participate in a 1%er Motorcycle Club



Defender06
05-26-2009, 09:09 PM
It got brought up in a discussion, Air Force specicifc would it be a violation of UCMJ for an USAF AD member to participate in a MC that claims 1 percenter status?

BlueChord11B
05-26-2009, 09:29 PM
I was wondering this too .. I remember our DS at Benning used to wear colors and he would flaunt them around when he was in civvies .. noone seemed to care but I always thought that was weird.

District B 13
05-26-2009, 09:45 PM
Check with your Command. There are new guidelines in place regarding membership with criminal street gangs, organizations. And those 1% are criminal gangs, no matter how you slice it.

Sgt. Slaughter
05-26-2009, 09:56 PM
Membership in and of itself is not a direct violation.

http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/ngic_gangs.pdf

ammcarty
05-26-2009, 10:35 PM
Membership is not a violation, flaunting your membership is. Out o sight, out of mind. However, if they are involved with illegal activities, you may want to think twice because the UCMJ is quite strict. What may land you in civilian jail for a year, could land you in a military jail much longer.

Irishluck31
05-27-2009, 12:14 AM
Its a blatent violation of Article one nintytheyarefrickenstupid!

FJDave
05-27-2009, 01:29 AM
I havent been an MP since 2006, so take my words for what they are - one man's opinion.

Being a member of a security threat group in and of itself is not a violation of UCMJ. However, the minute I see gang signs, colors, or anything that I can interpret as going to identify the maker/holder/wearer as a member, that IS a violation. I can and have brougt UCMJ charges for that. The military is the same as civilian law enforcement - gangs are infiltrating to receive training. The fact that we arent executing those found is dangerous in that our techniques and tactics are not viewable for the very people we're fighting against.

Things haven't changed.

M-11
05-27-2009, 06:03 AM
OK i'll bite.

How about all the Airmen and Soldiers on every base flaunting other gang affiliation apparel? Head rags and such. Are you going to grab them?

OMC's are not groups that advocate the overthrow of the American Government, therefore they are not expressly forbidin. In order for a Military member to be reprimanded for wearing colors, they would have to have a Commanders policy which states the affiliation is a detrement to good order and conduct.

I know of two full bird Colonels who ride with Mongols every weekend. They choose their friends poorly, but most of do at one point or another.

M-11

SBean06
05-27-2009, 06:33 AM
Well I work on the Drug Team for a Base in Oklahoma, and we have been charged now the task of surveillance of gangs and gang affiliation. I have personally sent chapter request and everyone of them has been approved by either showing that they participated in a crime with known gang members and/ or worn colors or just worn colors and admitted to reppin that specific gang. i.e stated they are blood.... Now when it comes to Motorcycle gangs I actually had my first case last week of a DOD Civilian and AD Service member being apart of a 1% all this stemming from a assault that took place, if they are found guilty of the charge and did it for that reason and or I can prove they are apart of the 1% and they claim to be a part of that group and participate in any other criminal activity the group is tied to crimes in the area the Civilian is fired and the AD will face UCMJ and Civilian prosecution than be separated or BCD for being apart of a Extremist or Organized Crime group. The way the new rules play as explained to me by JAG is that if they admit and there is evidence that they are apart of or a crime happens with gang members and they are there they can be prosecuted.

Woofdog
05-27-2009, 12:26 PM
It got brought up in a discussion, Air Force specicifc would it be a violation of UCMJ for an USAF AD member to participate in a MC that claims 1 percenter status?

Association with known criminals.

1%'ers are self described "outlaws," who by their own definition commit crimes. That's what they do. That's why they call themselves 1%'ers.

Military service is incompatible with outlaw gang behavior.

Article 134, UCMC. May also be a violation of art. 92, UCMJ if a directive against associating with criminal gangs exists.

Woofdog
05-27-2009, 12:29 PM
OK i'll bite.

...

I know of two full bird Colonels who ride with Mongols every weekend. They choose their friends poorly, but most of do at one point or another.

M-11

Incredible.

Senior officers with high clearances riding with a criminal gang.

Somebody should call the IG and report them for associating with these groups.

M-11
05-27-2009, 01:21 PM
1% legaly define themselves as Motorcycle clubs. We know it's crap, but how many Jags do you know who would go to a CM over affiliation?

The military justice system is not designed or prepared for these types of things.

Yes it's wrong, and with some work and a dedicated JAG something might stick, but it is a damn lot of work to get anyone to take it seriously.

M-11

District B 13
05-27-2009, 06:41 PM
Any LEO who joins, hangs, wanna-bees with any OMC (1%'ers) is a threat to all the other members of the agency they work with. There is no "it's cool. They like me". Give me a break... You have been turned.

Sgt. Slaughter
05-27-2009, 07:22 PM
There has been no mention of cops being involved. This only relates to U.S. military personnel.

LandGuppy
05-27-2009, 07:47 PM
It doesn't matter what 1% clubs define themselves as, "legally" or otherwise.

Commanders are authorized to punish servicemembers discovered to be affiliated with any gang (this includes street gangs and OMG's) to include punitive discharge under articles 134 and 92 of the UCMJ.

I have seen numerous examples of military members discharged for associating or just wearing the clothing of a gang, despite their actual membership status.

Unfortunately, I have also seen some members get a pass (in the aforementioned case of an LTC who was a member of the Hell's Angels and allowed to retire instead of getting the boot). Like anything else, it is up to the commander to determine their fate.

For guidance on this subject, commanders can reference DoD Directive 1325.6, Oct 1996. Paragraph 3.5.8 specifically states:

"Military personnel must reject participation in organizations that espouse supremacist causes; attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, or national origin; advocate the use of force or violence; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.

Active participation, such as publicly demonstrating or rallying, fund raising, recruiting and training members, organizing or leading such organizations, or otherwise engaging in activities in relation to such organizations or in furtherance of the objectives of such organizations that are viewed by command to be detrimental to the good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit, is incompatible with Military Service, and is, therefore, prohibited."


1% legaly define themselves as Motorcycle clubs. We know it's crap, but how many Jags do you know who would go to a CM over affiliation?

The military justice system is not designed or prepared for these types of things.

Yes it's wrong, and with some work and a dedicated JAG something might stick, but it is a damn lot of work to get anyone to take it seriously.

M-11

M-11
05-27-2009, 07:56 PM
Unfortunately, I have also seen some members get a pass (in the aforementioned case of an LTC who was a member of the Hell's Angels and allowed to retire instead of getting the boot). Like anything else, it is up to the commander to determine their fate.


It doesn't matter what 1% clubs define themselves as, "legally" or otherwise.

OK I'm trying to figure out if we are agreeing here.

Commanders have to say it's bad. That way people can be disciplined for it.

If the Commander does nothing, there is no case unless a crime is comitted.

This is what I keep saying right?

M-11

Defender06
05-27-2009, 08:14 PM
It depends on the Commander it seems ~* Or *~ the investigators on that base or location. I am really excited to see all of these's replys. Its good to see the Military L.E. section used for something other then "If I join the AF or Marines blah blah blah." The threads have there pourpose but this section would be that much better if we had case law discussions like this more, and would be a great benefit.

DoD Directive 1325.6, Oct 1996. Never heard of it till now. I am sure that the Investigations section might have not heard of this either and I wil pass it on.

JTShooter
05-27-2009, 09:57 PM
Well, it certainly won't help anyone get a "high speed" job that requires a clearance...

LandGuppy
05-27-2009, 11:15 PM
Well, in the Military Justice system, the unit commander is the person who has the most power. If the commander does not want to press charges for any offense, then there is nothing anyone but a more senior commander can do about it. CID/OSI/NCIS can find all of the evidence in the world to find someone committed a crime (even murder). If the commander decides that guy doesn't deserve prosecution, then he doesn't get prosecuted. The only way around that is a more senior commander has to remand it to their level (They can't even legally order the lower commander to prosecute).

Even if someone is convicted at courts martial, the commander can reduce the sentence, and they are the final authority.

Basically, no matter what the crime is, the commander has to decide to do something about it, otherwise, the activity goes on.

With regards to gangs, there is plenty of examples in all of the services of servicemembers being punished for gang affiliation, whether it be street gangs, racist gangs, or motorcycle gangs. In one case, the kid wasn't even in the gang, but dressed like it and was always throwing gang signs, and that was determined to be enough.

In the case of the LTC in the Hell's Angels, the commander determined that the LTC did not cause a disruption to good order and discipline with his membership. He didn't wear the colors on post and only a few military people knew of his membership for a long time (Until the investigation).

SBean06
05-27-2009, 11:36 PM
I agree with you that the commander has the highest authority in my case we have been requested to brief the garrison commander and the senior trial counsel for the criminal Law Section who if both agree with our investigation then brief the post commander... So far all of the cases my team has put through the chain whether it be sporting the colors, took part in a crime, of a self admission has supported action be taken most of the self admission and just wearing the colors have ended up as a chapter with a other then honorable.

smk99
05-29-2009, 09:25 AM
Well, it certainly won't help anyone get a "high speed" job that requires a clearance...

An intel brief sent out last fall on this vary issue, Active Duty Military and OMG's listed a few folks who have very high clearance levels, as well as access to very advanced weapons systems.