AF Sexual assault lawyer punished for social media comment
Stars & Stripes tells the story of Air Force Captain Maribel Jarzabek who, a few weeks before she leaves the military, decided to post comments to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) in support of the senator’s attempts to revamp how sexual assaults in the military are investigated and adjudicated. In the comment, the captain decided to identify herself as an Air Force lawyer, and that irritated the Air Force;
Under military regulations, uniformed personnel are prohibited from publicly participating in overt political causes. Appearing at a rally in uniform or endorsing a candidate is forbidden.
In her Facebook posts, Jarzabek identified herself as an active-duty Air Force lawyer, which apparently is what drew the attention of her superiors and prompted the investigation.
On Dec. 23, after a brief investigation, Jarzabek said she was notified by the investigating officer that she had been found guilty of the allegations. The punishment was decidedly mild: She was given “verbal counseling,” or a warning not to do it again.
Although the outcome won’t appear as a black mark on her official military record, Jarzabek called the investigation a thinly veiled attempt to retaliate against her for advocating too strongly for sexual-assault victims.
According to the article, today is the last day in uniform for the captain – I guess it would have been too much to ask her to wait until she was out of the service to express her opinion. Being a JAG lawyer, I have to think that she knows the rules under which uniformed members of the military are governed and so she knew what she was doing and she understood there would be consequences. But, for some reason, these cyber-warriors for social justice think that they can get away with whatever they want and then call whatever happens to them afterwards “retaliation”.
Category: Politics
And cue up her appearance on “The View”less in….
What, No Air Force Commendation Medal?
/AF I am disappoint.
There’s a sizeable group of captains from around her initial class that were unceremoniously booted out of the Air Force for budgetary reasons. The group had to leave by the end of this year, so I wonder if she is one of them. That, along with her likely being on terminal leave, could provide some context(somewhat) to her sour grapes and complete loss of military bearing. But this isn’t the first time (I can think of several from each service off the top of my head), and won’t be the last, that a JAG decides to use his or her “learned” official position to engage in advocacy well beyond his/her lane. She knows better.
I should add that many of the people who do this kind of thing are looking to make a name for themselves. If she is indeed one of those booted from the Air Force, she’s likely trying feverishly to find a job. In her mind, milking the sexual assault advocate position, which is only a few years old, may help her find that job before the money runs out. So the comment above about appearances on the View may not be so far fetched.
Well put, JAGC. That’s kind of what I was thinking. She was a captain and given the new budget cuts I’m guessing she didn’t make promotion. As for your theory of her trying to make a name for herself, you may be correct about that. Got a lot of that going right now.
I agree with both assumptions.
I think there is quite likely more of this to come. Anyone seen as a troublemaker will probably be RIF’d quickly.
And then there was Bateman.
I was thinking the same thing….why didn’t that douche canoe get punished for his dumb-fuckery?
She looks like she’s about eleven eggs shy of a dozen.
A friend of mine had his father sue the Air Force back in the 80’s over promotion practices employed by senior officers. It cost him his career but he won the case.
This is what happens when you raise a generation under entitlements. They think they can get away with anything because they are entitled.
Bingo!
Give the man a cigar!
My Dad likes to remind people, myself included, that, “You ain’t entitled to a Goddamn thing other than your last paycheck.”
Sounds like Captain SandyVaj could use such a reminder.
“It’s clear that if you support the current system and you do so publicly, then that’s something that’s considered praiseworthy and can get you promoted,” [Don Christensen] said. “But if you oppose it and say so, you’ll get criminally prosecuted.”
Don either is confused or playing word games. When a member of the military uses his rank or position to lobby for a political cause (in this instance, a bill that would take certain authority away from commanders in matters of sexual assault) that’s a no-no.
“I told the truth,” said Jarzabek […]. I do believe they are trying to silence me and also send a message to other special-victim counsels who agree with me but are afraid to speak up.”
She sounds like a little brat—a stupid little brat, at that. To the extent that the AF is using her indiscretion to send a message to others, I applaud the AF for reminding those who, like Jarzabek, would undercut policy by making their case to politicians. As for her telling the truth, even assuming that is true, so what? And as for her being silenced, she is free today to say all she wants—if anyone is willing to listen to her.
I have to disagree with the soon to be former Captain. The one thing no one, and I mean NO ONE in the AF today is willing to try and tamper with is the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program. This program is a hot button issue with anyone in a leadership position and to think that anyone would “send a message to other special-victim counsels who agree with me but are afraid to speak up” is ridiculous. If you want to get fired from any position in the AF screw with the SAPR program or the individuals who are enforcing it. You would have SAF or DoD IG up your ass in about a nanosecond.
What I do believe is she got tossed due to the budget, got pissed, and forgot the regulations. Plus she sounds like someone who is a “perpetual victim” and is never in the wrong in their old minds. Exactly the type of people my Air Force doesn’t need. Good Riddance.
You mean they don’t run the military by Facebook? That’s probably why she’s upset, not that the Air Force called her on her posts, she’s likely upset because she can’t “contribute” to the way the AF is run.
I agree with you and 3E9, she sounds like a brat, and not somebody that anyone’s military needs.
The military is about to have its policy on social media conduct adjusted. It is common for one issue to be used as the catalyst to bring attention to another.
Sexual assault is not something I find amusing. If we are going to continue to expand the role of women in the military something better be done to ensure their safety from within the ranks. Even a neanderthal like me knows something should have changed a long time ago.
Adopting a Buddhist policy of ‘Change comes from within’ will not get it done. Members of the military in leadership roles that do not attack reports of sexual assault need to be treated harshly. Those who make false claims of sexual assault need to be treated equally harsh. Strip a few of all their rank and give them a BCD after they get out of the brig. That will wake the good old boys up.
Guidelines on social media conduct are vague and nebulous. What opinion can not be viewed as politically relevant? The current trend is no opinion of any kind can be posted. This position is not tenable. This woman offered her opinion on a public officials web site specifically designed to gather the opinions of those she serves. Not only is this military members opinion muted, the senators right to hear from those she serves is muted. That policy serves no one.
She has every right to voice her opinion on a given issue to Members of Congress privately, Dave. Every member of the military does.
What members of the military do not have the right to do is to advocate an issue publicly, using their official position and status to give credence to their public position. That’s true of both officers and enlisted personnel, though officers have a few additional restrictions in that area.
The former (contacting Congress to give one’s opinion) is called giving input to one’s elected representatives. The latter (advocating publicly as a member of the active duty military for a change in military policy) is a form of “going around the chain-of-command”. In in the political field, that is specifically prohibited by DoD policy and regulations.
Seems to me you had a problem recently with an Army E8 who went around her chain-of-command and professionals peers regarding a similar issue. I fail to see why this situation is any different.
I do have a problem with katrina presley or moerk or whatever name she is using these days. Moerk used her rank and active duty status to render her opinion in a public forum. So did this woman. Correct them both or accept the current policy paints with too broad of a brush.
Katrina Moerk is encouraged to make videos that offer politically volatile opinions and it is sanctioned by the military. She then publishes her own personal blog which identifies her as active duty military and posts her opinions for all to see. There are countless military members doing the same thing.
Jarzabek simply posted to a public officials site that specifically asks for her opinion. There is no such rule that states a military member may not render their opinion in public if a member of the U.S. Congress asked her to do so.
The current guidelines about social media are too ambiguous and no clear policy of conduct is in place.
Disagree as far as the AF is concerned. There are several Air Force Instructions that govern social media use and address them directly. AFI 1-1 and 35-107 address social media and 51-902 addresses political activities. All members of the AF are bombarded with training regarding this, many time taught by their local JAG. She has every right to express her opinion; she doesn’t have a right to do so under the guise of her official position. I didn’t see where her opinion was specifically requested, but I could be wrong on that.
Current AF guidelines are adequate and there is a clear policy of conduct and discipline for those who fail to adhere to that policy.
Under the current understanding of policy your post could be considered wrong. You are offering an opinion about Air Fore policy in a public forum. Let us hope there is no SNCO that reads what you posted and finds it offensive.
But what I didn’t do was identify myself as a member of the military in an effort to lend credibility to my opinion. Therefore my post is within guidelines as my personal opinion.
If I post the same opinion, but I say “as a Captain in the AF”(which I’m not) then there is an issue. Guidance seems pretty clear to me.
Even if you did identify yourself as active duty military there is no obligation on my part to accept your claim a credible.
Making a claim of who you are can not be held as credible for one purpose and not for another.
You should have no reason to believe that your authority can be extended through the internet and into my living room.
I am astronaut Dave Hardin. Now my opinions about NASA are legit just because I made the claim online.
The problems with social media policy are substantial. They need to be corrected. The military has moved the bar too high.
Ok down deep into the rabbit hole we go. I hold no sway over your opinion with my title; however, if I use my title, regardless of what you think, to try and lend credibility to my opinion then there is an issue. I don’t know why this is so confusing. We can what if a situation to death all week long.
What if…We all have a great NEW YEAR. Best Wishes
Amen to that. Happy New Year Don.
The two cases are not comparable whatsoever.
In Moerk’s case, she initially confronted (allegedly) misbehaving soldiers as their superior NCO and told them to clean up their act. That was fully in concert with DoD policy and an NCO’s authority. Where Moerk went astray was to go “VFR direct” to an SES at the Pentagon vice to their chain of command when those misbehaving soldiers ignored her. That “blue falconed” a huge number of her political peers, and also involved very senior leadership in dealing with a matter that could have been handled at the unit 1SG level. Both of the latter are unacceptable.
Here, this former Captain deliberately used her uniform to advocate a political position. That is directly contrary to DoD regulation. I’d have no problem with what she did had she not publicly identified herself as a serving member of the US military. However, once she did that in conjunction with advocating a political issue or position without authority to speak on behalf of her service, she violated regulations – and thus also violated Article 92 of the UCMJ. Moreover, as a lawyer she knew (or should have known) exactly that.
What determines then when identifying yourself by rank when it should be honored online.
You are accountable if responding to an open invitation by a senator.
You are not accountable if you run your own blog or are invited to post things to it by a member of the Defense Department.
They are comparable when it comes to establishing when and where one is accountable and should be extended authority as a member of the military online.
“In Moerk’s case, she initially confronted (allegedly) misbehaving soldiers as their superior NCO and told them to clean up their act.”
Superior? In the words of Kelsey Grammer: Merely a higher ranking one.
What members of the military do not have the right to do is to advocate an issue publicly, using their official position and status to give credence to their public position.
I was going to post something cautiously supportive of CPT Jarzabek, until I read what you wrote above and I do think that that is a crucial distinction. It would have been one thing for her to have written to Sen. Gillibrand privately, but taking a public position using your status as a troop is different.
Having said that though, I do think that Dave Hardin’s point about the social media policy being a mess is a valid one. My wife used a picture of me in uniform as her profile picture for a while. As John has correctly identified me as one of those “non-facebook using sociopaths” I don’t have an account, but I occasionally comment to friends using hers. If she has posted some political commentary with my picture on her account would I have been held accountable? It seems to me that there are lots of ways that the social media policy might hurt GIs who really haven’t done anything wrong.
Regulations can often be interpreted in many ways. If she is posting political commentary I think you are clear. If you post political commentary and identify yourself as a military member in an effort to give credibility to your opinion then you may have an issue. But then again I’m not a JAG so my opinion doesn’t really count on that.
What I took away from my service in the Army was this, just because you have a college degree and/or a commission, doesn’t mean you are smart. Guess that’s true in the Air Farce too.
Reading Dave Hardin’s post got me thinking way more than I should on a slow almost-holiday. Stating a political opinion on Facebook is generally permissible; however, using your name and rank (which could conceivably include a photo of such ala Joe vs. the ARCOM Queen) is not generally permitted. But Soldiers are permitted to contact members of Congress for real or perceived issues. This often becomes the “Congressional.” Although the facts here are fuzzy as she likely crossed the line into political advocacy, I could make somewhat of a case that she is technically within the rules, albeit not within the true intent of such rules. The government could make a case for the opposite as well, but I think it makes for an interesting academic question for regulation-nerds like me.
I think her doing this, publicly and while identifying herself as a serving member of the USAF, would still run afoul of both DoD policy and the Anti-Lobbying Act, JAGC. I believe the latter and DoJ’s (and DoD’s) interpretations of same essentially say that’s a no-no unless she had been authorized by the USAF to contact Congress and speak on behalf of the USAF on that specific matter.
Given the fact that she was reprimanded for publicly contacting Congress/advocating in favor of a political position while serving as a member of the USAF, I’m guessing she wasn’t authorized to speak for the USAF regarding that issue or position. Rather, she was merely using her official position and status to advocate in favor of a particular political action – one pending in Congress.
Yeah, I have a problem with that – particularly when it’s a military officer doing so.
I came to the question based on what she said: “Changes are needed, and it’s time that the public knew about the military’s true dirty little secrets!”
Yes, nothing you said was wrong. However, I could make the argument (which would be a total lawyer argument so take it for what it’s worth) that she is essentially whistleblowing directly to the Congresswoman. Like, “hey, I know some dirty secrets and they need to be reported!” In that vein, she could whistleblow based on her rank. She didn’t go through the proper channel, and I in know way would actually believe my own argument that she intended to be a whistleblower, but if this ever escalated beyond a verbal reprimand, that’s the argument I may have used if I was her defense lawyer. In her case, it’s moot since she’s gone. But again, academic, regulation-nerd musings.
While I agree that there may be a little fuzziness around the edges here, if she was only trying to communicate her views to the Senator, she could have done so by letter, e-mail, or probably even via a private message through Facebook. By posting a public Facebook comment, she pretty clearly crossed the line into advocacy, in my opinion.
Bingo. I’d have no problem with a private communication of any type. Ditto a public statement where she did not identify herself as a member of the military.
Going public in uniform to advocate a political stance or opinion is where she stepped over the line. When someone does that, they’re just plain wrong.
Using what ‘In Uniform’ implies has been stretched beyond comprehension. It used to mean ‘In person while wearing the uniform’. Now it seems to imply that if I sign an enlistment agreement I am ‘In Uniform’ until the moment that agreement expires. That is a false assumption.
Are we allowed to consume ‘adult beverages’ while ‘In Uniform’. The sacrifice of certain civil liberties while serving in the military is understood. I could easily make a case that this extent of my civil liberties being sacrificed prior to my enlistment were not made clear.
The current policy has moved the bar too far. enforcement of this policy is all over the map and hence has no merit.
Well, whatever one may not do in uniform does not include wearing parts of it while in a gay porn movie. Remember SGT Matthew W. Simmons of the Marine Corps Band? The military court (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals) said that it was not a violation b/c although he was wearing his dress blue jacket, he was not clearly representing the Marine Corps while poking some other guy is the butt, or whatever the hell he was doing, in the dick flick. So, there’s that.
I guess everything has its place. Be careful who gets behind you. Have a great NEW YEAR.
But she wasn’t really a military officer, Hondo. She was an Air Force JAG. (Am typing from under my desk.)
Wow, I’m not a JAG and that was even a low blow to me.
But funny as hell he said from under his desk also.
She has a future with MSNBC as an unattractive on air personality.
May be she can do a show just before or after Sharpton with that whore from the DC area college entitled “You Raped Me … Now Pay for MY Birth Control Pills”.
Just sayin’!
Unattractive is right. Doesn’t she look like Mackenzie Phillips?
Now that you mention it . . . yes, she does somewhat.
She looks like you could put her face in dough and make gorilla cookies.
Okay, you guys. Knock it off. You don’t need to compound the Rodney King style beating she got with the ugly stick. That’s just cruel.
Her looks could peel the paint off of a warship!!
All of this over a verbal counseling? How many of us, at some point in our working lives, were verbally admonished by our bosses for breaking a rule, and told to not do it again? And how many of us then went crying to the Washington Post? This appears to be a pretty clear case of self-promotion on her part.
“verbal counseling” What a nice, gentle, way to not hurt some snow flake’s precious feelings and esteem.
“Royal Ass Chewing” Leaves no room for doubt as to the intent…and I have had some text book Royal Ass Chewings and I learned from them.
Its also a nice way of saying yeah we could have taken thing farther but choose not as to not delay her leaving the force.
You hit it on the head. Simple punishment, get her ass out. Probably had a history of insubordination to her superiors and other attitude problems.
My 50 cents here. It seems to me that the military in general is more obssessed with sex in toto than it was in the 1960s, when there was no SHARP or SAPR or anything else. There was more worry/concern/phobia about homosexuals than there was about anything else. Well, now the homophobia has been dealt with by adding openly gay men and women to the ranks. Big frakkin’ deal. But they still have this problem of obssession with sex overall. I do not understand why the things we were told to do in the 1970s – report it, ID the rapist or batterer, get some serious counseling, take self-defense classes – have been left by the wayside. Men are also subjected to rape, by other men. You guys make jokes about it all the time, but you know that it happens just as well as I do and it is not addressed. Unwanted physical contact, e.g., ass-grabbing or groping or whatever, including rape, is battery, not assault. Assault is verbal abuse. I guess it would be logical to say I could file a complaint against PN Fenstermacher for screaming bloody murder at me at Bainbridge and YN Kathy ‘Bitch’ Bates down in Pensacola, but I figured after all these years that Bates would have choked on her own spit and Fenstermacher would have imploded, so who gives a shit? It was E-2, low on the totem pole, being addressed by E-5, much higher on the totem pole. However, being dressed down by a superior is not verbal abuse. Verbal abuse/assault occurs when we see the likes of Bernath and Wickre threatening to set us on fire or whatever they cooked up this week. If the military really wants to address this problem, which has always existed, it will have to start enforcing Title VII in regard to sexual harassment on the job. http://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/cases/harassment.cfm Here’s the Supreme Court’s opinion on the same thing. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf These powerless pointless lectures that seem to take place repeatedly are not only not having the desired effect (stopping the crap), it seems to be making it… Read more »
I Agree. I believe this is one of those times when the change will not come from within. The mandate to correct it will come from a higher civilian authority. I expect our current administration will get right on that shit.
“Being a JAG lawyer, I have to think that she knows the rules under which uniformed members of the military are governed and so she knew what she was doing and she understood there would be consequences.”
No, leftists and stank ass hippies may know the law, but they think it doesn’t apply to them. They are above such trivial things as laws in their pursuit of ‘social justice.’
The mere fact we have acknowledged this mouth breathers existence and even refer to her as an AF officer is a victory for her. Poor excuse for an advocate of the military justice system and even more as an officer. This is what you get out of the AFCOT program.
Awe c’mon guys,
She was just trying to get an easy medal.
There seems to be a lot of key board warriors nowadays, I hope that their aren’t the only kind of warriors left when the next war comes along.
They** not their
Should have waited to get the sleep out of my eyes before posting
The Senator has been remiss in her responsibilities as well. If it is acceptable for military members to contact their representatives directly then the Senator should offer a viable means for them to do so online. She invites people to offer opinion online. She then has an obligation to protect the rights of people to do so.
‘If you are a member of the military please do not post on this public forum. You may submit your responses by clicking on the link below’
That statement on the Senators site would have afforded this woman a means to respond in kind and still satisfy military decorum.
Agreed.
I think this is a combination of 1) shopping out her resume to the Senator’s office and
2) a short timers “Fuck you”, to the AF.
What is it about this obsession with sex that has these ridiculous people, mostly women, running to someone at the top instead of going through channels?
I’m still blaming the parents, except that the military does emphasize the chain of command – or doens’t it? Has that gone by the wayside?
This is nothing less than a ploy for attention because this obnoxious cow got handed a pink slip. It is absolute BS.
And has anyone besides me noticed that both Moerk and this dingbat look like short men when their hair is pulled back?
(OH, GOD! That was SO mean of me!!)
Maybe the Sec.AF will send her her AFCOM in the mail. 😀
Chain of command still exists. The biggest issue with it now is everyone in the chain has to have an “open door” policy in case the problem is the chain of command.
Knowing a few like her in my day, I would be curious to know if she ever showed up to work on time and actually did not deflect potential work.
That’s a good question. I wondered that, too, because she presents herself as a busybody, sticking her nose into everyone else’s business.
I also found some real serious difficulty in understanding how she could not accept a dressing down from a commissioned officer, saying on her blog that she wanted to scream at him. There must have been a reason for his doing that.
I got the royal ass chewing from the legal officer when I went to NAS Pensacola and did not check in as soon as I got there, because I truly thought if you got there on a weekend, you did not have to check in until Monday morning. He did, in fact, hand me my ass so emphatically and brilliantly that I was never ever late for anything for the remainder of my adult life, not even the dentist.
This chick really does strike me a someone who thinks she’s privileged and the rest of us are not. If she can’t tolerate being reprimanded by someone senior to her, then where does she get off reprimanding anyone else?
” But, for some reason, these cyber-warriors for social justice think that they can get away with whatever they want and then call whatever happens to them afterwards “retaliation”.”
Because that is reality now.
The SJWs are nearly untouchable and they know it.
She looks like a goblin from lord of the rings.
I’m glad my suspicions were correct about these social justice warriors.