Retired colonel charged with forgery, falsifying document

[George Wallace]

Sometimes true, sometimes not.  Probably depends on what type of "Second Career" he may be aspiring to and what type of screening they do.  Will they be interested or not in his moral and ethical decission making?  Will his previous reputation have a negative or positive influence internally and externally on their organization?

 

[tomahawk6]

What is important is how your peers view you. If you are under a cloud you suddenly find yourself alone. Friends of many years dont socialize with you. The invites dry up. That weighs heavy.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sometimes true, sometimes not.  Probably depends on what type of "Second Career" he may be aspiring to and what type of screening they do.  Will they be interested or not in his moral and ethical decission making?  Will his previous reputation have a negative or positive influence internally and externally on their organization?

In this case, from the CM decision, it appears to have had no impact yet:

.... He continues to maintain a professional association with RMC, and continues to be highly regarded by his engineering colleagues in the academic world ....

 

[Journeyman]

.... He continues to maintain a professional association with RMC, and continues to be highly regarded by his engineering colleagues in the academic world ....

...except for those cruel cadets who walk past his office and go "be-eep"    >

 

[The Bread Guy]

...except for those cruel cadets who walk past his office and go "be-eep"    >

:rofl:

 

[medicineman]

...except for those cruel cadets who walk past his office and go "be-eep"    >

Thanks, my sinuses are now recovering from an attack of chicken soup going through them...

MM

 

[fraserdw]

Well, it is good to see that those nasty old courts are not ruining anyone's life! :sarcasm:

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The sad thing is that when Col. Lewis had been initially queried about the discrepancy and had came back and said something like "Oops, made a mistake" and rectified the record, this would never of happened. As soon as he started making false statements and started falsifying documents he was only screwed.

 

[Bluebulldog]

The sad thing is that when Col. Lewis had been initially queried about the discrepancy and had came back and said something like "Oops, made a mistake" and rectified the record, this would never of happened. As soon as he started making false statements and started falsifying documents he was only screwed.

It's seldom an initial act of deception that gets found, more often than not it is one of the actions done in support of it.

 

[Wolseleydog]

I hate to ask this, but I have another question here -- has his promotion to colonel been retroactively invalidated?

The reason I ask is that, as I read the details, his last valid expres test was back in 2008, which was (I believe) before his promotion.  That would mean that he did not have a valid expres test, one of the requirements for promotion.
So has his promotion been retroactively invalidated?  That would of course have implications for recovery of pay and, especially, on pension rate.  Far beyond the $5000 fine.

Do I detect a hint of this, buried deep at the very bottom of that court martial statement (http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012-lewis.page), where it lists, at the very bottom, after all of the text, the two counsels, and the defence counsel is described as "Lieutenant-Commander B. Walden, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services, Counsel for LIEUTENANT-COLONEL Lewis" [emphasis added]

 

[Ostrozac]

Reference his PT test being a requirement for promotion, and therefore that promotion being invalidated, it is a very likely scenario, but administrative actions are not inherently public, unlike courts-martial, so we will likely never know all the details.

 

[Monsoon]

I hate to ask this, but I have another question here -- has his promotion to colonel been retroactively invalidated?

The reason I ask is that, as I read the details, his last valid expres test was back in 2008, which was (I believe) before his promotion.  That would mean that he did not have a valid expres test, one of the requirements for promotion.
So has his promotion been retroactively invalidated?  That would of course have implications for recovery of pay and, especially, on pension rate.  Far beyond the $5000 fine.

Do I detect a hint of this, buried deep at the very bottom of that court martial statement (http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012-lewis.page), where it lists, at the very bottom, after all of the text, the two counsels, and the defence counsel is described as "Lieutenant-Commander B. Walden, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services, Counsel for LIEUTENANT-COLONEL Lewis" [emphasis added]

According to his retirement message, he was promoted to Colonel in June 2008: http://everitas.rmcclub.ca/?p=59202

 

[FJAG]

I hate to ask this, but I have another question here -- has his promotion to colonel been retroactively invalidated?

The reason I ask is that, as I read the details, his last valid expres test was back in 2008, which was (I believe) before his promotion.  That would mean that he did not have a valid expres test, one of the requirements for promotion.
So has his promotion been retroactively invalidated?  That would of course have implications for recovery of pay and, especially, on pension rate.  Far beyond the $5000 fine.

Do I detect a hint of this, buried deep at the very bottom of that court martial statement (http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/en/2012-lewis.page), where it lists, at the very bottom, after all of the text, the two counsels, and the defence counsel is described as "Lieutenant-Commander B. Walden, Directorate of Defence Counsel Services, Counsel for LIEUTENANT-COLONEL Lewis" [emphasis added]

Probably just a typo. The style of cause of the case identifies him as "Colonel".

Interesting question though. I know of no method by which one can "invalidate" a promotion and since I can't seem to get CFAOs through the internet anymore I can't even look it up.