Wednesday, January 31, 2007

More Outrageous Comments By G. Klingenschmitt

G. Klingenschmitt must be operating in a different reality than every commissioned officer I know. About the same time he made the outrageous claims you wrote about, he made yet another unbelievably crazy statement on Beliefnet. He said: "Because the misdemeanor court did not have the power to kick me out of the Navy, ... I immediately predicted the Navy would find some other way and, sure enough, they have," he said Thursday (Jan. 11). No kidding! Who wants a convicted officer serving in the military? It must be pointed out that G. Klingenschmitt's conviction would have been a felony conviction had his command referred him to a General Court Martial rather than a Special Court Martial. The fact that he is not a felon today is more of a testament to the restraint & mercy granted him by his command than to the Navy's impotence.
Of course, the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard would seek to administratively separate from active duty ANY OFFICER who was convicted in a Court Martial. What is he thinking? The Navy does not want a convicted criminal serving in such a senstive leadership position as a chaplain. It is the duty of all commissioned officers to set the standard for behavior within the services. That is why there is no Good Conduct Medal for officers in any of the military branches. Officers are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard, period. Officers get no "brownie points" for conducting themselves honorably and within the law and requlations. Commissioned officers all know what the expectations are before we accept our appointments. Why is is so difficult for G. Klingenschmitt to understand such a basic concept of honor? What mother or father would want their son or daughter to serve under an officer who is a convicted criminal? For that matter, what Sailor, Marine, Coastguardsman, soldier, or airman would want to go to a chaplain who was convicted in a Court Martial? I don't know too many who would want to do so.
Of all officers, chaplains are held to an even higher standard of conduct that any one else. When a chaplain engages in such unprofessional and unseemly behavior as G. Klingenschmitt had, administrative separation is definitely to be expected. Had he accepted Captain's Mast under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, G. Klingenschmitt would have still probably been separated from active duty, because of the combination of his poor performance and his misconduct.
G. Klingenschmitt, himself recognizes that he has tarnished his reputation later in the same article I quouted above. "Klingenschmitt had been affiliated with the Evangelical Episcopal Church. He ended that relationship after his court-martial, and is now affiliated with the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches. He said he made the change because he felt the guilty finding of the court-martial no longer permitted him to "maintain a spotless reputation" that was part of his covenant with the Evangelical Episcopal Church." ibid. Klingenschmitt admits that his reputation and honor is spotted by his criminal activities. What makes him think that any of the services would want him to continue serving with such a record? Also, what does that say about G. Klingenschmitt's attitude towards his new church? If he thought his criminal conviction disqualified him from ordained ministry in one church, then why doesn't he think it disqualifies him from being ordained in his new church? Again, what makes him think that his failure to "maintain a spotless reputation" qualifies him for continued active service as a commissioned officer?
Originally posted by CommanderQ (used by permission)

"No, this man has no shame whatsoever."

Quote of Middlelinebacker on

"In answer to your rhetorical question, "Does this man have no shame?" the answer is a resounding and unreserved, "No, this man has no shame whatsoever." Have you seen and heard some of his comments on radio interviews and in comments to the Baptist Press? He doesn't bother to tell folks that he isn't being "evicted" but that he is merely required to vacate quarters as all others are required to do on receipt of orders. He doesn't tell how he deceptively got extended base passes on false grounds and then took them to housing as proof that he was being permitted to remain in housing. Of course, all of this was discovered and overturned. When he talks about his wife being at home having to pack everything in boxes, he doesn't bother to tell the public that the Navy provides a free move. He doesn't tell the public that the Navy will pull a van up to his door, send packers in to pack everything and then load it, transport it to the next home, unload it, unpack it and put it in place. He doesn't tell the public that he has chosen to do a "Do it yourself move" and all expenses of the move will be paid by the Navy. He says that he is losing his house and his car (?) and will be without a job but he doesn't tell the public that the Navy is giving him a severance check of between $96,000.00 and $100,000.00. The formula for severance pay is 10% of base pay multiplied by number of years of active duty. He unashamedly told one radio interviewer that he turned down an Air Force move to Washington and a promotion to Lieutenant Colonel to take a demotion to Lieutenant and become a Navy Chaplain. In the first instance, he didn't have enough time in grade as a Major to be promoted to LtCol and besides that, we know that the military doesn't just give you a promotion for taking a set of orders. There is a board and selection process in every case. Also, most of us are sick and tired of hearing how he took a demotion to become a Chaplain. Everybody who crosses over to become a Chaplain takes a demotion if they are senior to the rank of Lieutenant. Lieutenant is the entry point rank. There is no virtue in making such a choice; it is simply a matter of necessity. And yes, I agree that his "biography" should be removed from Wikipedia. Furthermore, I am a bit tired of hearing well-meaning people make excuses for him and bemoan his "bad luck" in the Navy. He hasn't had bad luck. He has made bad choices and there is sufficient evidence to prove that he has done this willfully and with unethical and deceptive intent. This person brings shame and dishonor to both the title of Naval Officer and Navy Chaplain."


Does Gordon Klingenschmitt Have No Shame?

After having been away on Navy business for a few months, I decided to check back in on this article and the rest of LT Klingenschmitt's propaganda only to find some whoppers!

I agree with CommanderQ that there has to be some dishonesty going on with Kling.'s claims of "eviction." CommanderQ wrote: "G. Klingenschmitt even posted two letters from Base Housing and the command which indicates that he was somehow trying to finagle staying in his government quarters beyond his eligibility period. (With his track record, one has to seriously wonder whether he was trying do so fraudulently.) Then, he has the gall to call this an "eviction notice" on his website! Everyone on active duty, both officer and enlisted, knows that government military quarters are available only for as long as one remains on active duty. (Widows/widowers of military personnel killed in action are given six additional months after the death of their loved one.)"

Wait just one minute. If Klingenschmitt had BUPERS orders directing him to detach from active duty NO LATER THAN January 2007, how could he have convinced the CIVILIAN housing contractor that he would have access to DoD facilities until the first of March? It certainly could not have been from telling them the truth! Kling. is not retirement eligible AND he is past the 8 year minimum service requirement. Therefore, when he detaches, he will be a complete civilian with no military affiliation, active, reserve, or retired, whatsoever. He knew that he was going to lose access to all DoD facilities on the end of January 2007. So--how does he convince the civilian contractors that he had one more month of access than he was allowed by law? I would venture to say that he probably did not convince them by being completely honest to them about the true facts of his situation.

For Klingenschmitt to call this an eviction is shamelessly dishonest. If Kling. somehow would have made it to retirement, he would have had to vacate military quarters just the same, because his eligibility has changed. This is not eviction! Part of every active duty member's compensation package includes either military quarters or the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). Whenever anyone leaves active duty, he or she loses the housing part of the compensation package just as much as the basic pay portion. This happens to literally tens of thousands of Sailors, soldiers, airmen, Marines, and Coastguardsman who leave active duty every day. Yet, they don't call it eviction because they all understand that you quit getting paid after your employment ceases. It seems weird to me that an educated man like Mr. Klingenschmitt just can't figure simple things like this out. What makes Kling. think that he rated tax-payer funded quarters for one month after he lost his job with the Navy? Who was he trying to cheat? You, me, and every other tax payer, that's who. Does this man have no shame?

Just from my quick reading of the two pdf files on Kling.'s website, I could easily figure that something was not kosher in Klingyland. For example, his website lists his BUPERS orders with this comment: "6) Chaplain is ordered by Admirals (who claim to speak for the President?) to separate from Navy" Those orders are signed by the Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel. AND, YES, he does speak for the President in matters such as this. When they are speaking officially for the Navy, they are speaking for the President. Kling. must have forgotten that officers are commissioned by the President, not by their own authority. In Klingyland, it seems that one is only accountable to himself. Every other commissioned officer in the US Armed Forces, except Mr. Klingenschmitt, knows that we all serve at the pleasure of the President.

Some more integrity issues...Kling. keeps claiming that he was convicted of violation SECNAVINST 1730.7C (now rescinded). That is false. He was convicted of violation Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (not rescinded) disobeying a lawful order or regulation. The lawful order he disobeyed is found in US Navy Regulations, 1990 (also not rescinded). It is an explicit prohibition of wearing one's uniform to attend (let alone speak at) political or partisan meetings. The fact that he shot off a quick prayer "in Jesus' Name" (which, by the way, I do publicly all the time without any problems) did not nullify the fact that he the meeting was a partisan gathering in protest of the very Navy that gave him the uniform! He was not being denied the right to go, as a private individual in civilian clothing. He just couldn't go in uniform. On Kling.'s personal website, he even acknowledged that attending in uniform was wrong when he characterized it as "civil disobedience." It seems to me that Klingenschmitt felt that he was on a crusade to save the Navy from itself. The problem was, who was going to save the Navy from Klingenschmitt? It is just sad that it took this long for him to be thrown out of the Navy.

This article needs to be changed to either reflect Klingenschmitt's huge integrity problems OR reduced or deleted because he is not a prominent enough figure to rate an encylopedia article in the first place. I vote for deleting it completely.