When are Regulations just guidelines??

[Greyarea09]

In no stretch of the imagination is a regulation defined as a guideline. In fact the synonym of regulation is LAW. If you search the internet for the definition of military regulation you get links to military LAW. SO when are regulations and more specifically Army Regulations or ARs just guidelines or recomendations on how procedures and actions are handled??

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Greyarea09

In no stretch of the imagination is a regulation defined as a guideline. In fact the synonym of regulation is LAW. If you search the internet for the definition of military regulation you get links to military LAW. SO when are regulations and more specifically Army Regulations or ARs just guidelines or recomendations on how procedures and actions are handled??

You would need to post your situation. Your question is too vague and open-ended

[Greyarea09]

I am currently undergoing a Chapter 14-12C
the conduct in question meets the restriction set in AR 635-200 section II paragraph 1-17. I have copied a clip of the reg/paragraph and bold text the pertaining restriction.

1–17. Restrictions on administrative separation and board hearings
a. Separation action for the reasons indicated in paragraph 1–16a will not be started until a soldier has been
counseled by a responsible person about his/her deficiencies and offered a reasonable opportunity to overcome them.
b. Separation per this regulation normally should not be based on conduct that has already been considered at an
administrative or judicial proceeding and disposed of in a manner indicating that separation was not warranted.
Accordingly, administrative separations under the provisions of chapters 11, 13, 14, and 15 and AR 380–67 are subject
to the following restrictions. No soldier will be considered for administrative separation because of conduct that—
(1) Has been the subject of judicial proceedings resulting in an acquittal or action having the effect thereof. Only
Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) will decide that an action does not have the effect of an acquittal. The
convening authority must submit a request for such a determination through command channels to Headquarters,
Department of the Army (AHRC–EPR–F), 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332–0478.

[Zigner]

I ain't playing the role of the dentist in this showing. I'm out.

[Greyarea09]

what is that supposed to mean? Dentist????
I am just looking for an explanation of how a regulation is "just a guideline". if the truth hurts so be it. it really isn't a vague and open end question. Fact is fact definitions are definitions and neither the facts or definitions support the Grey response of "regulations are just guidelines". Especially when a service member can be punished by the UCMJ for not following regulations.

Bottom line is I just want confirmation one way or the other. I don't want to loose my career and if regulations are just guidelines in this particular situation why?

[DRTDEVL]

How about you just tell us what happened? What did you do? What were you convicted of? What punishment was dealt? What is the chain of events leading up to the chapter?

Is that so hard?

[ERAUPIKE]

Originally Posted by Greyarea09

what is that supposed to mean? Dentist????
I am just looking for an explanation of how a regulation is "just a guideline". if the truth hurts so be it. it really isn't a vague and open end question. Fact is fact definitions are definitions and neither the facts or definitions support the Grey response of "regulations are just guidelines". Especially when a service member can be punished by the UCMJ for not following regulations.

Bottom line is I just want confirmation one way or the other. I don't want to loose my career and if regulations are just guidelines in this particular situation why?

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Regulations are considered lawful orders. Violating a regulation is the same as violating a lawful order. That is how you can be punished under the UCMJ. I would like to call your defense the thesaurus defense.

[Greyarea09]

You people obviously are as shady as those enforcing regulations I mean guidelines wait **************.yeah when it fits the need of the leadership it is a regulation but when it may support the service member its a guideline.

It sounds as if the only real answer is to say it is a ethical and philosophical one. Because if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound????

As far as what happened you idiots don't need the details to answer a simple question. You will inevitably contradict yourselves even more and I use a quote from your post

"Regulations are considered lawful orders."...ERAUPIKE
so is your answer all regulations are law???? or just considered that way when it fits someones agenda?

if you read all the post you and had an reasoning skills you would know that I was not an convicted because an acquittal or action thereof results in a dismissal, no conviction.

The actual situation doesn't or shouldn't matter matter.....
I am not arguing the point that I was not convicted by civilians and then given an article 15. I am irritated because according to REGULATIONS No soldier will be considered for administrative separation because of conduct that—
(1) Has been the subject of judicial proceedings resulting in an acquittal or action having the effect thereof.

you want a scenario FINE

I threw an apple when I was at a park it hit someone and it injured them.
The police were involved and gave an in-accurate report and I received several charges. I plead not guilty, I completed some programs and the case was dismissed (judicial proceedings resulting in an acquittal or action thereof) so It meets the restriction stated by the regulations to not be processed for administrative separation.

SO how is that regulation a guideline and different from a regulation stating you will not drink under age?...as an example

truth is it shouldn't matter what happened because regulations are regulations..... or are they?

and to clarify I am not claiming entrapment or that in the beginning of the whole mess regulations were not followed or that an article 15 would not have been allowed or appropriate. I am trying to clarify what to me by definition from Websters and how for a service member are held to regulations is when do they become guidelines and optional to follow.

Yes it is a cynical question.
Because I do follow the regulation and had a personal issue that did not involve anyone in the military and was punished by civilian law to an extent and unofficially by the military and now when regulation favors my situation it is a guideline

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Greyarea09

You people obviously are as shady as those enforcing regulations I mean guidelines wait **************.yeah when it fits the need of the leadership it is a regulation but when it may support the service member its a guideline.

It sounds as if the only real answer is to say it is a ethical and philosophical one. Because if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound????

As far as what happened you idiots don't need the details to answer a simple question. You will inevitably contradict yourselves even more and I use a quote from your post

"Regulations are considered lawful orders."...ERAUPIKE
so is your answer all regulations are law???? or just considered that way when it fits someones agenda?

if you read all the post you and had an reasoning skills you would know that I was not an convicted because an acquittal or action thereof results in a dismissal, no conviction.

The actual situation doesn't or shouldn't matter matter.....
I am not arguing the point that I was not convicted by civilians and then given an article 15. I am irritated because according to REGULATIONS No soldier will be considered for administrative separation because of conduct that—
(1) Has been the subject of judicial proceedings resulting in an acquittal or action having the effect thereof.

you want a scenario FINE

I threw an apple when I was at a park it hit someone and it injured them.
The police were involved and gave an in-accurate report and I received several charges. I plead not guilty, I completed some programs and the case was dismissed (judicial proceedings resulting in an acquittal or action thereof) so It meets the restriction stated by the regulations to not be processed for administrative separation.

SO how is that regulation a guideline and different from a regulation stating you will not drink under age?...as an example

truth is it shouldn't matter what happened because regulations are regulations..... or are they?

FINALLY

Your civilian charges were DISMISSED. That is nothing like "Has been the subject of judicial proceedings resulting in an acquittal or action having the effect thereof. "

You were NOT acquitted of the charges. You were not found not guilty, or anything like that. The military action against you sounds proper.

[Greyarea09]

Acquittal
In criminal law, an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. The opposite result is a conviction.
In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is abandoned nolle prosequi. Under the rules of double jeopardy and autrefois acquit, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict, or whether it results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused.

nolle prosequi (no-lay pro-say-kwee) n. Latin for "we shall no longer prosecute," which is a declaration made to the judge by a prosecutor in a criminal case (or by a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit) either before or during trial, meaning the case against the defendant is being dropped. The statement is an admission that the charges cannot be proved, that evidence has demonstrated either innocence or a fatal flaw in the prosecution's claim, or the district attorney has become convinced the accused is innocent. Understandably, usage of the phrase it is rare. In the 1947 courtroom movie, "Boomerang!" the climactic moment arrived when the District Attorney himself proved the accused person innocent and declared "nolle prosequi."

my apologies for saying dismissed
the definitions support my argument

I would like to add this is just one argument on the "case" the packet was erogenous and other factors which regulations support this packet being pulled have been neglected as well.

the question still stands regulations are guidelines how?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Greyarea09

Acquittal
In criminal law, an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. The opposite result is a conviction.
In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is abandoned nolle prosequi. Under the rules of double jeopardy and autrefois acquit, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict, or whether it results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused.

nolle prosequi (no-lay pro-say-kwee) n. Latin for "we shall no longer prosecute," which is a declaration made to the judge by a prosecutor in a criminal case (or by a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit) either before or during trial, meaning the case against the defendant is being dropped. The statement is an admission that the charges cannot be proved, that evidence has demonstrated either innocence or a fatal flaw in the prosecution's claim, or the district attorney has become convinced the accused is innocent. Understandably, usage of the phrase it is rare. In the 1947 courtroom movie, "Boomerang!" the climactic moment arrived when the District Attorney himself proved the accused person innocent and declared "nolle prosequi."

my apologies for saying dismissed
the definitions support my argument

I would like to add this is just one argument on the "case" the packet was erogenous and other factors which regulations support this packet being pulled have been neglected as well.

the question still stands regulations are guidelines how?

The state was NOT convinced you were innocent (using the apple-throwing scenario). The state allowed you to do a diversion program in lieu of prosecution.
If your apple-throwing scenario was just a hypothetical, then I'm absolutely done. If you cannot post the FACTS of your case, then you cannot get an answer.

Furthermore, your entire premise that regulations are being treated as guidelines cannot be approached because you have failed to show that this is what has happened IN YOUR CASE.

ETA: From the first hit in Google (legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com):

The effect of a nolle prosequi, when obtained, is to put the defendant without day, but it does not operate as an acquittal; for he may be afterwards reindicted, and even upon the same indictment, fresh process may be awarded. 6 Mod. 261; 1 Salk. 59; Com. Dig. Indictment. K; 2 Mass. R. 172.

[ERAUPIKE]

This is just a very stupid question that you will never accept the answer to. Zigner is correct, you were not acquitted of your charges. You obviously have a very limited understanding of the law and a somewhat limited education. You were never acquitted, "I completed some programs and the case was dismissed." Which is a very different legal scenario. The regulation you have cited has no bearing on your situation. If you worked on your comprehension of the law you would recognize that. Your attitude will undoubtedly see you throwing apples at the park, as a civilian, in no time.

[Greyarea09]

I feel regulations are law. I have been told that they are just guidelines and would like someone to admit that for E-6 and below regulations are law and for E-7 and above they are guidelines.

I am not going to put personal information on a public forum and risk having it brought to the board. Because unlike a criminal court or court marshal just about anything may be submitted by either side.

the facts are simple

1. There was an incident, police were involved after the fact.
2. I was charged and went before a judge.
3. after completing the requirements set by the state the charges were nolle prose
4. according to dictionaries definitions regulations are not guidelines and nolle prose is an action thereof an acquittal. the only authority to say other wise is HQDA.

oh and the definition you referenced is one of many legitimate definitions however is a true Grey area due to other legitimate definitions stating that it is equivalent to an acquittal. Logically it works in conjunction with the definition of acquittal emotionally it works against it . considering in criminal cases nolle prose are not give out lightly.

But whatever
you want to know information that is not relevant to the fact that regulations are not guidelines but laws and argue about scenarios. I may not be an officer or old enough to be a senior enlisted but I can tell when I am dealing with argumentative idiots who don't know anymore than I do.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Greyarea09

I feel regulations are law. I have been told that they are just guidelines and would like someone to admit that for E-6 and below regulations are law and for E-7 and above they are guidelines.

I am not going to put personal information on a public forum and risk having it brought to the board. Because unlike a criminal court or court marshal just about anything may be submitted by either side.

the facts are simple

1. There was an incident, police were involved after the fact.
2. I was charged and went before a judge.
3. after completing the requirements set by the state the charges were nolle prose
4. according to dictionaries definitions regulations are not guidelines and nolle prose is an action thereof an acquittal. the only authority to say other wise is HQDA.

oh and the definition you referenced is one of many legitimate definitions however is a true Grey area due to other legitimate definitions stating that it is equivalent to an acquittal. Logically it works in conjunction with the definition of acquittal emotionally it works against it . considering in criminal cases nolle prose are not give out lightly.

But whatever
you want to know information that is not relevant to the fact that regulations are not guidelines but laws and argue about scenarios. I may not be an officer or old enough to be a senior enlisted but I can tell when I am dealing with argumentative idiots who don't know anymore than I do.

The bolded portion above is wrong. That makes the rest of your question moot.

Stomping your feet and holding your breath won't change this fact. Grow up Soldier.

[Greyarea09]

To answer the your question posed in the title of this thread, at no time is a regulation a guideline.
A regulation must be complied with, or a waiver for non-compliance must be granted by appropriate authority. Failure to obey a regulation puts one at risk of administrative, non-judicial, penalties.

such a simple answer to a simple question. that no one on this site could give.

the fact is the only authority who can say the outcome of the judicial proceedings are not equal to an acquittal is the HQDA. We could argue the conflicting definitions all day and they will still be the same.

When its all said and done my question was never about a specific regulation and if it applied to my situation. The question was when are regulations just guidelines and the answer was simple NEVER.

so um yeah..... get a grip, get a life, and pay atention to detail and not look for insignifacant information that will cloud you reactions.

"Regulations are considered lawful orders" ERAUPIKE... I will say although some what of a crass reply to the question, considering it wasnt very objective and detailed. It does support the final answer. No regulations are not guidelines

SCOUTS OUT !!!!!!!