While reading Mark Evans’ “Best Argument” blog entry detailing ordeal of a sailor summoned before the Disciplinary Review Board on charges of false enlistment, I have to admit my brain went on its own Perry Mason exposition into the life and times of the SONAR Technician with 16 years in service. Though Evans described a compelling argument by the sailor’s section Chief which saved the sailor’s career despite falsifying his enlistment, the sailor’s motives and subtexts for bailing on self-defense training in the first place raised more questions for me as a reader, than Evans put to rest with the description of the Chief's testimony of valuable experience and time in service.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not arm-chair-quarterbacking the Chief or the DRB. However, while I imagined the situation and what kind of evidence might have been presented, I did begin to wonder what made the sailor want to avoid the training in the first place? Was the revealing a domestic violence conviction worth avoiding the physicality of strenuous training? Did the sailor think the exposure to ground fighting or choke holds might stir his violent past behavior? Could the training spur on a re-introduction of violent behavior that is more detrimental to the family of a past offender than being without a job? All unknowns from my perspective, of course.
For the sake of argument – so to speak - I still agree that the Chief’s argument was convincing, but my mind keeps wandering back to the sailor’s original motivation and I’m not totally sold on his retention as the “best outcome”.
No comments:
Post a Comment