US Navy will only sell alcohol between 6AM and 10PM

Here’s the key quote:

“If people are going to drink, they’re still going to buy it wherever,” Seaman Bryan Free said after buying a bottle of vodka from a Naval Station Norfolk gas station.

If a policy looks like PR puff, walks like PR puff, and quacks like PR puff, then it probably is a duck.

Systemic cultural change, education, etc., those are the difficult changes. So, you know, a little quacking PR puff is probably easier.

Anyway, full article follows…

Navy Changes How Alcohol Is Sold on-Base

NAVAL STATION NORFOLK, Va. August 17, 2013 (AP)

On the world’s largest naval base, sailors can pull into a gas station and buy a bottle of liquor before sunrise.

But as the Navy works to curb alcohol abuse in a push reduce sexual assaults and other crimes, the days of picking up a bottle of Kahlua along with a cup of coffee are coming to an end.

The Navy’s top admiral has ordered a series of changes to the way the Navy sells booze. Chief among them, the Navy will stop selling liquor at its mini marts and prohibit the sale of alcohol at any of its stores from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

“It’s not going to fix everything, but it is a real step in the right direction,” said David Jernigan, Johns Hopkins University’s director of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth. “Historically, the military, as elsewhere, has viewed these problems as individual problems to be dealt with by identifying the individual with the problem. While that’s important, the research shows it’s much more effective actually to look at it as a population problem and to deal with things that are affecting everybody across the population.”

The changes are the latest addition to a broader, long-standing alcohol education and awareness program that appears to have had some success. Throughout the Navy, the number of alcohol-related criminal offenses dropped from 5,950 in the 2007 fiscal year to 4,216 in the 2012 fiscal year. The number of DUI offenses dropped from 2,025 to 1,218 during that same period, according to Navy Personnel Command.

Liquor will still be sold on U.S. bases at a discount of up to 10 percent for what it can be bought at in a civilian store, but sales will be limited to dedicated package stores or exchanges that sell a wide variety of items.

At Naval Station Norfolk, the main exchange is comparable to a small shopping mall that sells clothing, electronics and jewelry, among other things, at a discount. At smaller naval bases, the exchanges aren’t as sprawling but still often have the feel of big-box retail. While hours at those stores vary, most open at 9 a.m. close by 9 p.m.

The Navy’s minimarts at the Norfolk base currently start selling liquor as early as 6 a.m. That’s four hours earlier than people can buy at Virginia’s state-run ABC stores off-base that are typically open from from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays.

Jernigan said a growing preference among young people for distilled spirits over beer and wine means the Navy’s moves could be particularly helpful.

“But that said, alcohol is alcohol, so reducing the availability of one kind is a step in the right direction, but you can certainly get just as impaired from drinking beer and wine as you can from distilled spirits,” he said.

In the 2012 fiscal year, the Navy reported $91.9 million in distilled spirits sales, compared with $39.3 million in wine and $62.3 million in beer. The Navy uses 70 percent of the profits from its sales of alcoholic and non-alcoholic products to support morale, welfare and recreation programs.

Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert also ordered the exchanges to display alcohol only in the rear of its stores. The new rules are set to take effect by mid-October.

Greenert’s order on alcohol sales was issued the same day in late July the Navy unveiled other initiatives to battle sexual assaults that range from hiring more criminal investigators to installing better lighting on bases.

The effort follows a Pentagon report, released in May, that estimates as many as 26,000 service members may have been sexually assaulted last year.

Alcohol is often involved. In a survey, 55 percent of Navy women said they or the offender had consumed alcohol before unwanted sexual contact.

Navy officials have stressed they’re not trying to keep sailors from drinking, but they want them to do so responsibly.

The Navy is already giving many sailors random alcohol-detection tests when they report for duty, and soon the devices will be found on store shelves for personal use. The single-use product will sell for $1.99.

Jernigan suggested the Navy may want to eliminate its discounts on alcohol — just as it recently did with tobacco — if it wants to make further strides.

Not all sailors think the new rules will help.

“If people are going to drink, they’re still going to buy it wherever,” Seaman Bryan Free said after buying a bottle of vodka from a Naval Station Norfolk gas station. “So if they take it out of here, it’s not going to do nothing because they’re going to go to the package store right out of base. That’s usually where everybody gets it. So it doesn’t really matter.”

Most of the Navy’s large bases are in urban areas with plenty of convenience and grocery stores nearby.

And in the Navy, on-base housing options are typically limited, leading Free and other sailors commute to work rather than living in barracks.

Robert Parker, a University of California at Riverside sociology professor who has studied the links between alcohol and crime, said restricting on-base alcohol sales should help even if there are places to buy it nearby.

“If you make something like alcohol harder to get, you restrict the hours, you restrict the places it can be bought, then generally consumption goes down in that community or that area because people have a lot of things to do in addition to buying alcohol,” Parker said. “There will be some individuals that will be determined no matter what, and they’ll travel 100 miles to buy a six pack, but most people won’t do that.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/navy-alcohol-sold-base-19990751

Obama’s remarks construed as “unlawful command influence”

Commander-in-Chief remarks construed as “unlawful command influence.”

You think having a Harvard-educated law professor in the White House…

Obama’s remarks delay 2 military sex assault trials

President Barack Obama in the Oval Office of the White House May 31, 2013 in Washington, DC. Olivier Douliery, Abaca Press/MCT

By William Cole
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser
Published: July 22, 2013

Two sexual assault courts-martial for Navy men at Pearl Harbor are now postponed because of a comment made by President Barack Obama.

The trial issues — related to a statement by Obama, the commander in chief, that sexual assault perpetrators should be dishonorably discharged — potentially amount to “unlawful command influence” and are part of a spate of military cases nationwide in which the defense is being raised.

The fear is that court-martial boards, aware of such statements from superiors, would be swayed to give the defendant less than a fair trial and that the public would view any convictions and discharges as the boards merely following orders.

In one of the Hawaii cases, Petty Officer 2nd Class Ernest Johnson, a crew member on the destroyer USS Russell, was scheduled to go on trial June 17 on charges that he sexually assaulted another male sailor who was asleep or intoxicated, according to court records. The alleged assault happened Sept. 9.

Obama’s comment came May 7, the day the Pentagon reported that the estimated number of military personnel victimized by sexual assault had surged by about 35 percent over the past two years.

In answer to a reporter’s question, Obama said: “I have no tolerance for this. I expect consequences. So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training but folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this stuff, they’ve got to be held accountable, prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”

Three days later Johnson’s defense counsel sought to dismiss all charges due to “unlawful command influence.”

Cmdr. Marcus Fulton, a Navy judge at Pearl Harbor, refused to dismiss the case but concluded there was apparent unlawful command influence by the president. As a remedy, he removed from possible consideration bad-conduct and dishonorable discharges in the event of a conviction.

The government prosecution appealed the decision to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, which halted Johnson’s impending trial.

Fulton issued a similar finding — and a similar stay in proceedings — in a sexual assault case involving Seaman Javier Fuentes Jr., a member of Patrol Squadron 47 at Kaneohe Bay, according to the appeals court.

Fuentes was accused of assaulting a woman on Maui on June 30, 2012, who “was incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to impairment by an intoxicant,” according to a Navy charging document.

In the wake of high-ranking military commanders’ stern words about sexual assaults in the military, defense attorneys have seized on those statements to claim unlawful command influence.

More than 60 Marine Corps defendants used the defense after Gen. James Amos, the commandant, made a comment in 2012 that he was “very, very disappointed” when court-martial boards don’t expel those found guilty of sexual assault. And Obama’s

May 7 utterance now has been cited in more than a dozen cases, according to news reports.

In the Johnson case, Fulton found that a member of the public “would not hear the president’s statement to be a simple admonition to hold members accountable.”

The public “would draw the connection between the ‘dishonorable discharge’ required by the president” and a punitive discharge approved by a military court.

“The strain on the system created by asking a convening authority to disregard this statement in this environment would be too much to sustain public confidence,” Fulton said.

Johnson’s counsel sought to show influence by other senior military leaders’ comments about sexual assault, but Fulton ruled those out.

Unlawful command influence, or improper interference with the court-martial process, is forbidden under Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Fulton added that appellate courts have called it “the mortal enemy of military justice.”

Fulton admitted it is not entirely clear that Article 37 applies to the president as the commander in chief.

The prosecution, in seeking to reverse Fulton’s ruling, said Obama is “not subject to” the military justice code, but also noted that the issue is “decidedly not settled.”

Lawyers for Johnson have requested oral arguments before the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington D.C.

The government prosecution, wanting to return the case back to the trial court as soon as possible, wants a decision without oral arguments.

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, said it may take a while for the issue to percolate up to the highest court of the military, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

“I really would be very surprised if the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces were to give the president a free pass — because careless comments by the president can have a serious adverse effect on public confidence in the administration of justice under the UCMJ,” Fidell said.

Fidell said he wonders what legal advice, if any, Obama, a former law professor, was given about unlawful command influence.

“I think he’s learned a valuable and painful lesson,” Fidell said.

www.stripes.com/news/us/obama-s-remarks-delay-2-military-sex-assault-trials-1.231604