After court-martial, this Marine cites religious freedom in her continued legal fight

[rug]

Monifa Sterling was convicted of disobeying a direct order and other charges in part because she hung this religious message at her work station on her Marine Corps base. (Photo by Wynona Benson Photography/ Released by the Liberty Institute)

By Dan Lamothe
May 21

A court case working its way through the military justice system raises a basic question: Should a member of the military be allowed to post a religious passage in her place of work?

The case involves Monifa J. Sterling, a Marine veteran who was convicted in a court-martial at Camp Lejeune, N.C., of failing to go to an appointed place of duty, disrespecting a superior commissioned officer and four specifications of disobeying a lawful order. She was sentenced last year to a reduction in rank from lance corporal to private and given a bad-conduct discharge, a status that will stay on her military record and prohibits her from receiving benefits as a veteran.

It is a specific portion of Sterling’s past that is still in dispute, however. Sterling was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order in part because she refused to take down three signs in her workspace with the message: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.” It’s a derivation of the biblical passage Isaiah 54:17, a motivational message that says that “no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper.”

Sterling, a Christian, had the message posted in three places around her computer – one for each part of the Holy Trinity, she said, according to court documents. Her boss, a staff sergeant, told her to take the signs down repeatedly, and did so herself when Sterling refused to do so. The senior Marine found their tone combative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/05/21/after-court-martial-marine-cites-religious-freedom-in-continued-legal-fight/

[cbayer]

1. I feel like I am missing something here.

Is this really about three small pieces of paper around her desk that said “no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper.”?

There has got to be more to it than that.

[rug]

2. Actually, I think that is what it finally comes down to.

Relgious expression in a government workplace. The Establishment Clause versus Freedom of Religion, both in the same Amendment.

[cbayer]

3. I'm surprised at the severity of her punishment.

I'm thinking she didn't respond well to requests to remove them and things escalated from there.

It seems hard to believe that members would not have the right to have small inspirational sayings in their personal workspace, particularly if they had not religious reference.

[rug]

4. I bet the motive to make this a federal case had a lot to do with office personalities.

[cbayer]

5. Agree. There has got to be a much deeper back story here.

[rug]

6. Or shallower, lol.

[struggle4progress]

7. ... On or about 20 May 2013, Staff Sergeant (SSgt) Alexander ordered the appellant to remove

the signs. The appellant refused and the SSgt removed them herself. The next day, the SSgt saw the signs had been replaced and again ordered the appellant to remove them. When the signs had not been removed
by the end of the day, SSgt Alexander again removed them herself.

In August of 2013, the appellant was on limited duty for a hip injury and wore a back brace and TENS unit during working hours. The medical documentation (chit) included a handwritten note stating that “wearing charlies & TENS unit will be difficult, consider allowing her to not wear charlies.” The uniform of the day on Fridays for the appellant’s command was the service “C” uniform and when the appellant arrived at work on a Friday in her camouflage utility uniform, SSgt Morris ordered her to change into service “C” uniform. The appellant refused, claiming her medical chit exempted her from the uniform requirement. After speaking with medical, SSgt Morris again ordered the appellant to change into the service “C” uniform. The appellant again refused. SSgt Morris then brought the appellant to First Sergeant (1stSgt) Robinson who repeated the order. Again, the appellant refused.

On 12 September 2013, 1stSgt Robinson ordered the appellant to report to the Pass and Identification building at the front gate on Sunday, 15 September 2013, from 1600 until approximately 1930 to help distribute vehicle passes to family members of returning deployed service members. This was a duty the appellant had performed before. The appellant refused, showing 1stSgt Robinson a separate medical chit that she had been provided to treat a “stress reaction.” This chit recommended that the appellant be exempted from standing watch and performing guard duty. Additionally, on 03 September 2013, the appellant was prescribed a medication to help prevent the onset of migraine headaches.

On 13 Sept 2013, the appellant was ordered to report to Major (Maj) Flatley. When she did so, Maj Flatley ordered the appellant to report to Pass and Identification on 15 September 2103 to issue vehicle passes and ordered her to take the passes with her. The appellant told Maj Flatley that she would not comply with the order to report and refused to accept the passes. On 15 September 2013, the appellant did not report as ordered ...

United States v. Sterling
201400150 (N.M.C.C.A. 2015)
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
Filed: February 26th, 2015

[cbayer]

8. Yeah, I think this has a lot more to do with insubordination and an issue over attitude

than it does with her little bible phrases.

Her pulling the religious freedom card at this time is looking pretty weak.

[Promethean]

9. There is definitely something off here.

It looks like a disagreement with a Sergeant got escalated to the point of absurdity.

First, I point out medical recommendations almost never get ignored in the military. I've seen people told to just take a week off because the painkillers they were given "might impair" the individual according to the doctor's recommendation.

So why would the SSgt ignore the medical recommendations? Well medical always only "recommends" because their medical orders need to be able to be overridden if a compelling interest presents itself. This SSgt who had an existing conflict with Sterling decided to use that loophole to throw her some discomfort with the Charlie uniform. When she presented her medical chit and was still refused she must have been very confused because like I said, medical recommendations are almost never ignored.

From that point it was escalated to a 1st Sergeant. 1st Sergeants are very busy people and tend to have very little tolerance for discipline problems. I can say with very near certainty that the SSgt told the 1stSgt that Sterling was a discipline problem. The 1stSgt probably decided she had her last chance and thus escalated to an officer which anybody who's ever been in the military will tell you is the final step/death knell for any situation.

All that said. She more than likely popped some attitude to the SSgt when initially confronted when what she should have done was remove the notes for the moment and ask the Sr NCO in her work group for advice. It likely would have been quietly resolved with her being allowed to keep her messages up.

[cbayer]

10. Thanks for the insights.

I think your take on this is probably much more accurate than this article. This can't just be about 3 little pieces of paper.