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.