Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

feel dumb or asking this ....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • feel dumb or asking this ....

    back when I was in the Marine corps I was takn to Bn level NJP for violating an MPO..... the situation was a bit screwey but never the less I violated it. I was reading over the lesser offences that were DQ for the HCC acanemy and it says something to the effect "violating protective injunction" ...... am I screwed guys???

    also how do I find out about my juvi record .... got arested once as a kid but i dont know what happened to the charges

    any advice or feed back would be awsome and thanks for your time


    K
    Last edited by Kilo LOst; 01-28-2015, 10:15 PM. Reason: i cant type in the dark

  • #2
    if you do apply proof read anything you send in,twice.but possibly yes

    Comment


    • #3
      thanks for the pointer, i wish the fourm had spell check

      Comment


      • #4
        Can you translate please? Not everyone here is military.

        If the "protective injunction" is a "restraining order", or more specifically a Domestic Violence related "stay away" order, you will not get hired.

        Comment


        • #5
          MPO = Military Protective Order

          They're new since I retired. It used to be the service member would be given a room in the barracks and told not to go home, or restricted to or from certain areas... now they do the same thing, but have given it a name, and probably it's own special form to write it on.

          The main difference between an MPO and a CPO (Civilian Protective Order) you see in civilian DV cases is the MPO is issued by the service member's commander, not a court, and only has effect while the service member is assigned to that commander.

          Violating an MPO is a violation of Article 90 of the UCMJ, the same as if he violated any other order issued by his commander.

          The level at which the violation was handled, Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP), is as low as it gets in the military. It isn't considered a criminal proceeding. The burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", the same as a civil court proceeding.
          Last edited by tanksoldier; 01-29-2015, 07:42 AM.
          "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

          "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
            MPO = Military Protective Order

            They're new since I retired. It used to be the service member would be given a room in the barracks and told not to go home, or restricted to or from certain areas... now they do the same thing, but have given it a name, and probably it's own special form to write it on.

            The main difference between an MPO and a CPO (Civilian Protective Order) you see in civilian DV cases is the MPO is issued by the service member's commander, not a court, and only has effect while the service member is assigned to that commander.

            Violating an MPO is a violation of Article 90 of the UCMJ, the same as if he violated any other order issued by his commander.

            The level at which the violation was handled, Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP), is as low as it gets in the military. It isn't considered a criminal proceeding. The burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", the same as a civil court proceeding.
            Mnnnnnnn ok

            I still think the poster will have problems getting hired.

            First of all the MPO is equivalent to a Civil (rather than Criminal) protective order in that the poster was ordered to stay away from his wife by a competent authority WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY to give that order

            Second, he violated that order

            I doubt there are going to be any law enforcement administrators that are going to be willing to take the chance of hiring this person (at least anytime SOON) because of the serious connotations of domestic abuse in todays society. There are just way too many other candidates who do NOT have that type of baggage .

            There were no convictions of domestic abuse, but few chief's or sheriff's are going to care once they see a protective order and and admitted violation of that order on a background report.
            Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

            My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

            Comment


            • #7
              I was getting to it, Iowa nailed it. After all the smoke clears, and the dust settles, what we have is a DV situation, and that could very well put the skids on any hopes the OP has of entering the LE profession.

              I'm going to attempt to look at the situation from an Administrator's point of view. This applicant was involved in a DV situation which resulted in a Protective Order issued by a command authority. While there "may" be some arguable "wiggle room" vs a vs. Lautenberg,the decision will almost invariably come down on the side of an agency NOT wishing to take a chance on the potential liability hiring this applicant could very well incur.

              Once more, DV will always be DV regardless of the origin or the venue.

              Comment


              • #8
                I still think the poster will have problems getting hired.
                Oh, I quite agree.

                I was just explaining what an MPO is.

                Probably technically possible, but improbable.
                "I am a Soldier. I fight where I'm told and I win where I fight." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

                "With a brother on my left and a sister on my right, we face…. We face what no one should face. We face, so no one else would face. We are in the face of Death." -- Holli Peet

                Comment


                • #9
                  A big thank you to my colleagues for translating the OP's alphabet soup!

                  Any type of violation such as the one above would probably get a pass from my agency.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    sorry guys for the bad spelling and thanks for the input. Even though the situation was several years ago and nothing came of the MPO it self ... it just wint away... does it matter the disposition after the fact or any of the back story im just screwed ???

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kilo LOst View Post
                      sorry guys for the bad spelling and thanks for the input. Even though the situation was several years ago and nothing came of the MPO it self ... it just wint away... does it matter the disposition after the fact or any of the back story im just screwed ???
                      As far as i am concerned..............just HAVING a "no contact order" placed against you much less VIOLATING that order --------pretty much screws you. Most police administrators don't want to go there with hires.

                      But in the great scene of things-------------the MPO WAS IN PLACE when you violated it.............I would not recommend hiring you because of that alone
                      Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                      My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Take another look at the Post immediately above mine. It says it all, and very accurately describes the situation you're in.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thank you Tank.

                          I'm going to be a bit liberal here & say there may be extenuating circumstances that could be explained away to a BI. It may not hurt to try but don't hold your breath.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No chance!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kilo LOst View Post
                              sorry guys for the bad spelling and thanks for the input. Even though the situation was several years ago and nothing came of the MPO it self ... it just wint away... does it matter the disposition after the fact or any of the back story im just screwed ???
                              I am guessing you were not a MP when you were in the Marines. Apply for any city, county or state job. You will have a good life. I doubt if law enforcement is for you.

                              Semper Fi

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 10655 users online. 415 members and 10240 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X