THE AIR FORCE LAW REVIEW - Christian Fighter Pilot.com

1 ARTICLES Boys (And Girls) Gone Wild: The MisGuided developMenT of The roBusT lAnGuAGe or deBATe docTrine under The federAl lABor relATions AuThoriTyLieutenant CoLoneL Frank D. HoLLiFieLDservinG TWo MAsTers: A scheMe for AnAlyzinG reliGious AccoMModATion requesTs in The MiliTAryMajor aDaM e. FreypreservinG The AlliAnce: The need for A neW coMMiTMenT To coMMon fundinG in nATo finAncinGMajor israeL D. kinghunTinG doWn TerrorisTs Wherever They exisT : isil in syriA And The leGAl ArGuMenT for uniTed sTATes MiliTAry operATions WiThin The TerriTory of A non-consenTinG nATion-sTATeMajor aaron L. v. hodGe: A cAse sTudy in The use of The coGniTive inTervieW As A MeAns To proMoTe TherApeuTic Jurisprudence in sexuAl AssAulT cAses under The uniforM code of MiliTAry JusTice (ucMJ)Captain CarMan a.

2 LeoneVoLumE 74 2015 THE AIR FORCELAW REVIEWThe Air FORCE Law REVIEW - Volume 74 - 2015 THE AIR FORCE LAW REVIEWAFPAM 51-106 The Air FORCE Law REVIEW is a publication of The Judge Advocate General, United States Air FORCE . It is published semiannually by The Judge Advocate General s School as a professional legal forum for articles of interest to military and civilian lawyers. The Law REVIEW encourages frank discussion of relevant legislative, administrative, and judicial Air FORCE Law REVIEW does not promulgate Department of the Air FORCE policy. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this publication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Judge Advocate General, The Judge Advocate General s Corps, or any other department or agency of the Law REVIEW solicits contributions from its readers.

3 Information for contributors is provided on the inside back cover of this who desire reprint permission or further information should contact the Editor, The Air FORCE Law REVIEW , The Judge Advocate General s School, 150 Chennault Circle, Maxwell Air FORCE Base, Alabama, 36112-6418, or e-mail at Official governmental requests for free copies, not under the depository program, should also be sent to the above this Law REVIEW as 74 l. rev. (page number) (2015).The Air FORCE Law REVIEW is available online at FOR CONTRIBUTORSThe Air FORCE Law REVIEW publishes articles, notes, comments, and book reviews. The Editorial Board encourages readers to submit manuscripts on any area of law or legal practice that may be of interest to judge advocates and military lawyers.

4 Because the Law REVIEW is a publication of The Judge Advocate General s Corps, USAF, Air FORCE judge advocates and civilian attorneys are particularly encouraged to contribute. Authors are invited to submit scholarly, timely, and well-written articles for consideration by the Editorial Board. The Law REVIEW does not pay authors any compensation for items selected for REVIEW . Members of the Editorial Board REVIEW all manuscripts to determine suitability for publication in light of space and editorial limitations. Manuscripts selected for publication undergo an editorial and technical REVIEW , as well as a policy and security clearance as required.

5 The Editor will make necessary revisions or deletions without prior permission of, or coordination with the author. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all material submitted, including citations and other references. The Law REVIEW generally does not publish material committed for publication in other journals. In lieu of reprints, authors are provided two copies of the issue containing their Form. Manuscripts may be submitted by disc or electronic mail in Microsoft Word format. Please contact the Editor at (334) 953-2802 for submission guidelines or contact the Editor at and provide your electronic contact information. Authors should retain backup copies of all submissions.

6 Footnotes must follow the format prescribed by The BlueBook, A uniforM sysTeM of ciTATion (19th ed. 2010). Include appropriate biographical data concerning the author(s), such as rank, position, duty assignment, educational background, and bar affiliations. The Editorial Board will consider manuscripts of any length, but articles selected for publication are generally less than 60 pages of text. The Law REVIEW does not return unpublished The Air FORCE Law REVIEW is distributed to Air FORCE judge advocates. In addition, it reaches other military services, law schools, bar associations, international organizations, foreign governments, federal and state agencies, and civilian (And Girls) Gone Wild: The MisGuided developMenT of The roBusT lAnGuAGe or deBATe docTrine under The federAl lABor relATions CoLoneL Frank D.

7 HoLLiFieLDservinG TWo MAsTers: A scheMe for AnAlyzinG reliGious AccoMModATion requesTs in The MiliTAry ..47 Major aDaM e. FreypreservinG The AlliAnce: The need for A neW coMMiTMenT To coMMon fundinG in nATo finAncinG ..113 Major israeL D. kinghunTinG doWn TerrorisTs Wherever They exisT : isil in syriA And The leGAl ArGuMenT for uniTed sTATes MiliTAry operATions WiThin The TerriTory of A non-consenTinG nATion-sTATe ..133 Major aaron L. v. hodGe: A cAse sTudy in The use of The coGniTive inTervieW As A MeAns To proMoTe TherApeuTic Jurisprudence in sexuAl AssAulT cAses under The uniforM code of MiliTAry JusTice (ucMJ) ..201 Captain CarMan a. LeoneTHE AIR FORCE LAW REVIEWVOL.

8 74 2015iiiiiTHE AIR FORCE LAW REVIEW lieuTenAnT GenerAl chrisTopher f . Burne, usAfThe Judge Advocate General of the Air Forcecolonel KirK l. dAvies, usAfCommandant, The Judge Advocate General s SchoollieuTenAnT colonel eric M. Johnson, usAfMAJor lAurA c. desio, usAfMAJor GrAhAM h. BernsTein, usAfMs. ThoMAsA T. pAulEditors, The Air FORCE Law ReviewEDITORIAL BOARD colonel AndreW c. folTz, usAfcolonel MichAel W. TAylor, usAfcolonel JereMy s. WeBer, usAflieuTenAnT colonel John c. Johnson, usAflieuTenAnT colonel seTh r. deAM, usAfMAJor dAniel e. schoeni, usAfMAJor dereK A. roWe, usAfMAJor pATricK A. hArTMAn, usAfMAJor zAchAry p . AuGusTine, usAfMAJor AnThony T. GhioTTo, usAfMAJor siMone v.

9 DAvis, usAfMAJor lAelA f . shArrieff, usAfMAJor isrAel d. KinG, usAfcApTAin KurT A. MABis, usAfcApTAin seTh W. dilWorTh, usAfcApTAin MicAh W. elGGren, usAfcApTAin chrisTopher T. delGiorno, usAfcApTAin BriAn e. peTerson, usAfcApTAin frederic puGliese, usAfcApTAin JoshuA p . nichols, usAfMr. peTer J. cAMpMs. cArA M. JohnsonMr. WilliAM h. hill, iiiAuthority to publish automatically expires unless otherwise authorized by the approving authority. Distribution: members of The Judge Advocate General s Corps, USAF; judge advocates of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard; law schools; and professional bar association (And Girls) Gone Wild 1 I. INTRODUCTION.

10 4 II. THE FLRA S DECISION IN THE GRISSOM CASE ..6A. The Balancing Test Used in Grissom ..7B. Analysis Under the Balancing Test Used in Grissom ..7C. Criticism of the Grissom Analysis and 1. The Grissom Case Misuses the FLRA s Decision in AFGE and INS, Where It Asserts That Grissom Somehow Falls Within Union-Management Balance for Protected Speech ..11 2. The FLRA Misuses the FLRA s San Bruno Decision to Justify That the Speech in the Grissom Case Falls Within the Ambit of Protected Speech ..12 3. The Grissom Case Misuses the Supreme Court s Old Dominion Decision s Protected Speech Decision to Justify the Decision in Grissom ..15 4. The FLRA s Use of Its Decision in Defense Mapping as the Model for Its Protected Speech Balancing Test is Misused, Where It Over-Extends Defense Mapping s Notion of Protected Speech to Justify the Decision in Grissom.