PDA

View Full Version : Staff sergeant relieved of duties after posing for Playboy



Prophet
01-12-2007, 07:38 AM
Staff sergeant relieved of duties after posing for Playboy (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/12/playboy.military.ap/index.html)
POSTED: 5:21 a.m. EST, January 12, 2007

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/01/12/playboy.military.ap/story.manhart.ap.jpg
Michelle Manhart says of her Playboy photos: "I didn't do anything wrong."

Zeus
01-12-2007, 07:41 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


Staff sergeant relieved of duties after posing for Playboy (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/12/playboy.military.ap/index.html)
POSTED: 5:21 a.m. EST, January 12, 2007

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/US/01/12/playboy.military.ap/story.manhart.ap.jpg
Michelle Manhart says of her Playboy photos: "I didn't do anything wrong."



I don't think she did anything wrong, but she had to know this will end her career.

=Z=

gr8vike
01-12-2007, 08:17 AM
Everyone in the Army knows that your body is Goverment Property. I would guess that she didnt want to be in anymore, and looked for a way out. As a SSG she probably joined before the wars and has probably been deployed multiple times and is growing weary of it. That is my take on it anyway!

gr8vike
01-12-2007, 08:19 AM
Im sorry. Air Force, I wasnt paying attention to detail.

NodakPaul
01-12-2007, 08:24 AM
First of all, when I went through training at Lackland back in the early 90's, there were no instructors I would like to have seen in Playboy.

Second, the actual legality of it is questionable.
There is no article in the UCMJ preventing a noncommissioned officer from posing nude in playboy.
When she did was within the confines of cilvil law, and the "Conduct Unbecoming" article only applies to officers, cadets, and midshipmen.


However, there is normally a standing general order in each MAJCOM that says something to the effect that an airman cannot do anything to reflect the USAF in a negative light.
There is also usually a general order that states that any self inflicted act cannot interfere with her ability to complete her duty.
I am sure that nude pics of their instructor is enough to cause distraction among a bunch of 18 and 19 year old airmen.
These two general orders is probably where she is going to get nailed.

NodakPaul
01-12-2007, 08:27 AM
"gr8vike" wrote:


Everyone in the Army knows that your body is Goverment Property. I would guess that she didnt want to be in anymore, and looked for a way out. As a SSG she probably joined before the wars and has probably been deployed multiple times and is growing weary of it. That is my take on it anyway!


This actually isn't true
A lot of people, especially in basic training and tech school, claim that if you hurt yourself through negligence or intent, it is considered damage to government property.
But that is actually just a rumor.

That and the article didn't say what kind of instructor she was, but I believe TI's (basic training instructors) are not deployable.
The majority of the instructors at Lackland AFB are TI's, medical instructors, security forces instructors, or combat control.
Call me crazy, but she didn't exactly fit the bill for SF or CC, so I assume she is either medical or a TI.
Neither one has a high deployment rate.

Zeus
01-12-2007, 08:30 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


First of all, when I went through training at Lackland back in the early 90's, there were no instructors I would like to have seen in Playboy.

Second, the actual legality of it is questionable.
There is no article in the UCMJ preventing a noncommissioned officer from posing nude in playboy.
When she did was within the confines of cilvil law, and the "Conduct Unbecoming" article only applies to officers, cadets, and midshipmen.


However, there is normally a standing general order in each MAJCOM that says something to the effect that an airman cannot do anything to reflect the USAF in a negative light.
There is also usually a general order that states that any self inflicted act cannot interfere with her ability to complete her duty.
I am sure that nude pics of their instructor is enough to cause distraction among a bunch of 18 and 19 year old airmen.
These two general orders is probably where she is going to get nailed.


It's that last bit which I tried to get into above, failed as I was typing and then just left the first sentence.

If she's in a position of authority over young men, then she's blown any credibility with them, because every one of them will have seen her naked by noon on the day the issue comes out.

However - I think, if being a SSgt in the AF is anything like what I know of the marines, then she's not a dummy, so she probably knew this going in and made sure she got enough $$$ from Playboy to cover it.

=Z=

whackthepack
01-12-2007, 08:32 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


First of all, when I went through training at Lackland back in the early 90's, there were no instructors I would like to have seen in Playboy.

Second, the actual legality of it is questionable.
There is no article in the UCMJ preventing a noncommissioned officer from posing nude in playboy.
When she did was within the confines of cilvil law, and the "Conduct Unbecoming" article only applies to officers, cadets, and midshipmen.


However, there is normally a standing general order in each MAJCOM that says something to the effect that an airman cannot do anything to reflect the USAF in a negative light.
There is also usually a general order that states that any self inflicted act cannot interfere with her ability to complete her duty.
I am sure that nude pics of their instructor is enough to cause distraction among a bunch of 18 and 19 year old airmen.
These two general orders is probably where she is going to get nailed.



With as hot as her body looks showing her naked is not a negative light.

gr8vike
01-12-2007, 08:41 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"gr8vike" wrote:


Everyone in the Army knows that your body is Goverment Property. I would guess that she didnt want to be in anymore, and looked for a way out. As a SSG she probably joined before the wars and has probably been deployed multiple times and is growing weary of it. That is my take on it anyway!


This actually isn't true
A lot of people, especially in basic training and tech school, claim that if you hurt yourself through negligence or intent, it is considered damage to government property.
But that is actually just a rumor.

That and the article didn't say what kind of instructor she was, but I believe TI's (basic training instructors) are not deployable.
The majority of the instructors at Lackland AFB are TI's, medical instructors, security forces instructors, or combat control.
Call me crazy, but she didn't exactly fit the bill for SF or CC, so I assume she is either medical or a TI.
Neither one has a high deployment rate.


I am really not familiar with how the Air Force runs. I am in the Army & know that if you go out and get a tatoo, you can get in trouble. And when I was working with the Air Force in Iraq, The SF did have some pretty good looking women. Maybe I was just used to the Army Women but I dont know. Nothing to go crazy about either way.

NodakPaul
01-12-2007, 08:43 AM
Apparently the CNN photo didn't do her justice...

http://myspace-138.vo.llnwd.net/01553/83/13/1553683138_m.jpg

And apparently the issue is already out because she is signing them at a bar in Houston tonight...

Zeus
01-12-2007, 08:55 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


And apparently the issue is already out because she is signing them at a bar in Houston tonight...


The articles I've just read say the issue comes out "this week", so I imagine that Playboy is putting her out there to maximize her exposure (pun intended) while the press is on the story.

Here's another image:
http://news.bostonherald.com/images/national/playboy01122007.jpg

=Z=

gr8vike
01-12-2007, 08:55 AM
Article 134 - General Article of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Zeus
01-12-2007, 08:56 AM
"Zeus" wrote:


Here's another image:
=Z=


http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2007/01/12/image2354875g.jpg

=Z=

Zeus
01-12-2007, 08:59 AM
And here's a couple slide-shows which are probably NSFW.

http://www.slide.com/large_ticker?pcid=nZh2_hc_gEkM4nSKqiIdLigc6zF8SYyG4MhdvqDKHzcEIWApZaRvag

http://www.slide.com/large_ticker?pcid=dO5DhH9TSOugrtqUtIb2AsPf845USkjKqcVgTAIXlmK_reJcuUF3Bg

=Z=

BloodyHorns82
01-12-2007, 09:04 AM
She is an attractive woman...don't get me wrong, but she looks a little old or too "weathered"
;D
to be posing in playboy.

Zeus
01-12-2007, 09:11 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


She is an attractive woman...don't get me wrong, but she looks a little old or too "weathered"

;D
to be posing in playboy.


That's why God created air-brushing.

=Z=

JDogg926
01-12-2007, 09:17 AM
Next on my to do list.
Buy Feb 2007 Playboy.

Prophet
01-12-2007, 09:24 AM
"BloodyHorns82" wrote:


She is an attractive woman...don't get me wrong, but she looks a little old or too "weathered"

;D
to be posing in playboy.


Some women are like a fine wine, they get better with age.

petrodemos
01-12-2007, 09:25 AM
omg that first slideshow was like the same face was phoshoped in, same smile every picture, lol

seaniemck7
01-12-2007, 10:00 AM
"petrodemos" wrote:


omg that first slideshow was like the same face was phoshoped in, same smile every picture, lol

Who's looking at her face??
:P

whackthepack
01-12-2007, 10:03 AM
The first set of photos when she is bending over the shoulders of the 2 girls did you notice that she is copping a feel of both women.

Freya
01-12-2007, 10:05 AM
Wow, that's harsh. At least she has something to fall back on.

VikesfaninWis
01-12-2007, 10:46 AM
I think she would have a great shot at winning our "What size is your rack" thread.. ;D

Now all we need to do is get her to become a member of PP.O.. That probably won't happen seeing as though her prize is a date with Cajun.. ;D

1800CULPEPPER
01-12-2007, 11:10 AM
The slide show moved to fast, I didn't even get a chance to shut my office door and pull my pants down before it was over. :'(
LOL

sandviking
01-12-2007, 03:32 PM
No T.I. EVER looked like that when I was at Lackland!!!
:o

That would have made P.T. more enjoyable.

whackthepack
01-12-2007, 03:57 PM
"Irwin" wrote:


The slide show moved to fast, I didn't even get a chance to shut my office door and pull my pants down before it was over. :'(
LOL



To much information!

ejmat
01-12-2007, 04:14 PM
"sandviking" wrote:


No T.I. EVER looked like that when I was at Lackland!!!

:o

That would have made P.T. more enjoyable.


I second that.
I went through in 1987 (yes I would be retiring this year if I stayed active duty) and no one looked like that.

Vikinglover919
01-12-2007, 04:22 PM
"VikesfaninWis" wrote:


I think she would have a great shot at winning our "What size is your rack" thread.. ;D

Now all we need to do is get her to become a member of PP.O.. That probably won't happen seeing as though her prize is a date with Cajun.. ;D


LMAO A Date A With Cajun Lol Id take her off her feet. u no ima nice college guy she wants me i no it.

MetalMike-LoudVike
01-12-2007, 04:28 PM
Staff sergeant yeah she can have a meeting with my staff.LOL ha heh but seriously salute your military LMAO.
but she pretty hot for an older woman


MMLV

BadlandsVikings
01-12-2007, 05:32 PM
I saw this yesterday, it's no big deal.

VKG4LFE
01-12-2007, 10:51 PM
"Zeus" wrote:


And here's a couple slide-shows which are probably NSFW.

http://www.slide.com/large_ticker?pcid=nZh2_hc_gEkM4nSKqiIdLigc6zF8SYyG4MhdvqDKHzcEIWApZaRvag
http://www.slide.com/large_ticker?pcid=dO5DhH9TSOugrtqUtIb2AsPf845USkjKqcVgTAIXlmK_reJcuUF3Bg

=Z=


Dang, I need to get me to some of those parties!!