2ID Alcohol Consumption Policy Letter Posted
UPDATE: News of the policy has hit the Stars and Stripes now. Here are some thoughts from some of the soldiers interviewed:
I think its going to be bad for morale, said Pfc. Michael Stafford, who says he does not drink alcohol. Its stressful out here. We’re away from everything and people want to go out and have a good time.
Pfc. Kolubah Beyan, of 2nd ID’s headquarters company, said the new policy is much needed.
However, it always comes down to a person’s responsibility, said Beyan, a self-described infrequent drinker.
How well the policy works will depend on how it is implemented, said Sgt. Bobby Cumby of 2nd ID’s Special Troops Battalion.
It could encourage soldiers to drink less or could encourage them to stay off-post later for fear of having their blood alcohol level tested when they return, he said.
It has its pluses and minuses, Cumby said. Hopefully it will take down the number of incidents, but it kind of hurts the people who haven’t been doing anything wrong.
Over at Lost Nomad he is “speechless” over the latest only in Korea story.
________________________________________
On the 2ID webpage the new alcohol consumption policy letter can be downloaded from here (HT: reader). Here are some of the key excerpts from the policy letter:
I find it interesting that TDY personnel don’t have to abide by this policy. I guess that means all the guys on TDY from the states for UFL can still go have a good time out in the ville while the soldiers permanently stationed in 2ID can’t be trusted too. Here is the alleged reason for the new BAC policy:
Nobody is going to buy the “Fight to Night” excuse that has been used for years for every mass punishment policy brought down on 2ID soldiers due to the actions of a few. A few years back E-6s and below who were stationed at Yongsan and other camps south of Seoul were banned from being able to drive a privately owned vehicle due to an increase in drunk driving incidents. At least when that policy was implemented the statistics were looked at and a policy was put in place that focused on the people committing the incidents, E6s and below. If the rise in alcohol related incidents in 2ID is because of underage drinking why isn’t a policy created that focuses on them?
Anyway to enforce this policy a lot of mandatory actions are being brought down on the company commanders to do things like mandatory health and welfare inspections of the barracks, inspections of off post homes, checking of refrigerators for booze in the barracks, quarterly alcohol training, etc. These are all things done at the unit level any way, but now since it is considered mandatory in a policy letter by the commanding general you will see more of these actions executed more frequently so the commanders can cover themselves when an incident happens. I’m willing to bet that unit commanders would rather have no alcohol related incidents than have over half their guys fire expert on the M-16 and wearing a PT excellence badge for example. Fat and can’t shoot, no problem as long as you don’t make the blotter. That’s the new 2ID.
I find it interesting how all the responsibility for fixing the alcohol related incident problems is put on the company commanders while the senior leadership takes no responsibility on themselves to help solve the problem. The senior leadership continues to create a ville culture that promotes alcohol by allowing underage drinkers to go into establishments that push booze and prostitutes on them and then they are surprised when there are underage drinkers busted in the ville?
Here is another interesting portion of the policy:
Commanders even before this policy could direct soldiers to take a command directed blood alcohol test. This is usually what is done to catch underage drinkers. So now the same approach is being used to catch people violating the new BAC policy. What isn’t clear in the policy is if MPs can have people take a BAC test. What will probably happen is that the MPs will pick people up who they think is above the BAC and then call the commander. I feel bad for the company commanders in 2ID. Not only are they being set up to take the blame for alcohol related incidents when they happen, but they will being getting calls all the time to come to the MP station to fill out paper work to do the command direct blood alcohol test probably on a lot of people who are not even over the limit. Than when the MPs aren’t calling him the CQ or First Sergeant will be calling him about soldiers they found that might be over .10% because if they don’t call him and the guy gets in trouble they will go down with him.
Something that wasn’t mentioned in the policy letter was the status of KATUSAs. I don’t see how this policy could apply to them when the US military UCMJ regulations don’t apply to KATUSAs. It will be interesting to see if the ROK Army will be willing to impose this on the KATUSAs or not.
This is probably the most interesting portion of the policy:
Harassment? Isn’t increased health and welfare inspections of the barracks harassment? Isn’t the MPs pulling people off the streets who they think is over .10% BAC harassment? Isn’t directing CQs to find people who might be over the BAC harassment? Let me guess, it isn’t harassment, it is “soldier care” just like this policy isn’t because of alcohol related incidents, it because the division needs to be ready to “fight tonight”, or the curfew isn’t because of blotter reports, but is for “force protection” reasons.
Soldiers aren’t stupid, but obviously some people think they are.
While out this weekend below is the card you need to carry around with you, along with a breathalyzer, a map of the off limits areas, a GPS device to make sure you don’t wander into some of the gigantic off limits areas like the Shinchon area, your warrior standard book, your battle buddy, and finally make sure you budget an extra 10,000 won to pay the extortion fare demanded by the cab drivers. It would probably be easier just to stay in the barracks at night.
Any wonder why soldiers dislike serving in 2ID?
Excellent post.
Gosh, GI, you are starting to sound like me.
The only thing I'm not sure about is your take on underage drinking in the Ville… who should be responsible to stop it.
I was always bothered by how USFK thought it was the club's responsibility to enforce USFK's underage drinking restrictions while never taking any proactive steps to stop underage GIs from going downtown… or, as a deterrent, paying closer attention to underage GIs who walked through the gate at curfew.
Instead, all effort was spent running stings on clubs… oblivious to the fact that alcohol-selling Family Marts and LG25s existed every hundred meters in every direction (which neither knew nor cared about USFK underage drinking policy). It seemed like more of a shakedown than an effort to stop underage drinking (actually, it was a shakedown in Lt. Davis' case).
More importantly, the only way for clubs to determine if a drinker is underage is to ask for ID.
But clubs have NO authority to request a military ID. If a non-military ID is shown, the club must follow Korean law and may allow 19 year-olds (sometimes 18 depending on birth date) to drink (and it MIGHT even be illegal to refuse service due to Korea's anti-age discrimination laws).
If a military ID is shown, the club can choose to "assist" USFK by refusing service as opposed to being placed off-limits. This brings up a true force protection issue which USFK refuses to address.
The military ID card contains information that should not be shown so easily to just anyone who asks. Not everyone running a bar in front of an American military base is on the same team.
To test the unbelievably lax force protection training that USFK gives it's GIs (and to shift attention and responsibility to those who needed it), I did a little test during one of the underage drinking "crackdowns" in which I carded everybody. While chatting and keeping eye contact I got a picture of the front and back of every ID that was handed to me. NOBODY noticed.
And there is more.
"Dude, you sound like you came from Boise? What city were you born in?"
"Dude, you look Lithuanian? Are you Lithuanian? What's your mom's maiden name?"
EVERYBODY answered the questions. Not one person failed to give every bit of information I asked for.
Granted, I am an American and many of the people were regular customers… so maybe they felt it was OK. But, I'm guessing a sexy juicy can get the same info (and more) faster than I can.
After they gave me the info, I showed them the photo of their ID and told them I now had all the info I needed to get a credit card under their name and order kiddy porn, machine gun parts kits and inflatable sheep to their work address… or buy a bunch of stuff and they would never know it happened until they got back to the States in a year or two… and I told them they were a dumbass.
Strangely, very few people saw the full significance of this and kinda dismissed it as not being a problem… kinda with the feeling that Big Momma USFK would somehow take care of them.
I told them to inform their superiors of what happened and I wrote e-mails to various people in leadership suggesting that forcing drunk GIs to show a military ID to strangers might not be the smartest policy.
Nothing. No response. Totally ignored.
And it continues to this day.
Maybe I should have kept all those pictures and information and retired… on cash advances.
J!
ChickenHead,
No I'm not as jaded as you at the command, but I just get tired of seeing no creative leadership, only simple leadership of making big sweeping policy statements that mass punish everyone. There are other ways to cut down on underage drinking.
Just by putting out a policy letter saying that the ville is off limits for underage soldiers between 8PM and curfew would cut down on the underage drinking in the ville. MPs can randomly card people in the ville that look underage and CPs walking around the ville who know the people in their units could help enforce it as well. There are other ways to cut down on underage drinking with out going after the legal age drinkers and creating bad morale within the ranks.
Having just left 2ID and reading this from the comfort of the US, I find the new policy totally predictable. You know that the Army and 2ID has its priorities wrong when the streamers it awards are "zero alcohol incidents" and "highest safety rating".
The leadership (field grade and above) is so disconnected from the Soldiers it is not surprising that such policies would be put into place. Much of the leadership live off-post, have their families on peninsula, and have more opportunities to decompress than their subordinates, specifically those stressed out junior officers and senior NCOs.
Too many solutions pay lip service to idiotic decisions from higher or are done in reaction to appease a Korean public that rarely cares save for the organized protests attended by the same interest groups over and over again. Such policies to support the "Fight tonight" mission as restricting the number of people who can be on leave or pass at any one time are rarely enforced. More importantly, the "Second to None" is now "Second to All" with a shooting war going on Afghanistan and Iraq.
In my opinion, 2ID does three things wrong. One, it isn't threat focused anymore. Knock the North Korean army all you will, but it still has close to a million at the DMZ and even with its aging equipment possesses numerous artillery tubes point south. The only briefings you get when you inprocess are ones on safety, prevention of human trafficking and warning signs of prostitution, and the requisite STD/suicide/etc presentations.
Second, 2ID does little to prepare its Soldiers for the shooting war they are going to enter when they leave Korea. When you are fighting for range space, use (or more frequently take to get fixed) the oldest equipment in the Army, and spend more time in make-believe computer wars and not out practicing shoot, move, communicate, you screw and discredit the Soldiers who signed up to defend their nation in a time of war. Most Soldiers stay in Korea for one year and leave. Is it right to use and abuse them while not providing them the tools they will need to succeed downrange?
Third, 2ID isn't a learning organization and it can't innovate the way it is going. People think that the Army in Korea is squared away since we've been at it there for 57 years. Well, the reality is, we've been at it 57 times one year at a time. I've heard almost everyone say that their purpose in Korea is to leave it a little bit better than they found it. Well, for everyone one of those people, I can say there are 9 that find some way to screw Korea up even more. That would be a net loss for the Division.
Is it any wonder that during inprocessing at airborne school they tell the Soldiers that if they disrespect officers and NCOs it represents a one-way ticket to Korea? GI Korea, I echo your sentiment. It really isn't any wonder that no one likes to serve in the "no smile zone".
The problem here is that 2ID pulled a new drinking age out of their ass that doesn't correspond with Korean law. Get rid of that, and then we can talk about whether underage drinking is a problem. You'd hope that a four-star with thousands of soldiers under his command in artillery range of NK would have more important things to worry about than implementing whatever regulations pass the scrutiny of his Magic 8 Ball. But if you harbored such thoughts, you'd apparently be hopelessly optimistic.
Hmmm… it just occurred to me what leadership is actually saying with the drinking age and BAC restrictions.
"American soldiers are inferior in discipline and judgment to Korean teenagers."
…but, wait… wouldn't that be leadership's fault?
J!
I read your article and I praise your blog for the info. One point that will show that this is just damage control, is that the policy states that soldiers on pass are not covered under the .10 BAC. The sick person that was involved in the HongDae rape was also on a DA31 pass (as briefed to soldiers in 2ID). This was the reason for a review of the current pass policy. Although it was signed by a Corporal, the block does state Supervisor on the form. There is alot that is wrong with people spending their time in bars, the incident that led to this policy wasn't at any of those bars. There is something to be said about soldiers readiness. What about the readiness of all military in the ROK. Last time I checked Korea was an assignment not a deployment. There is a big difference. Many of my fellow soldiers have just returned from Iraq, where there is an no drinking policy, just to come to another place that has a "why bother drinking policy". The right thing to do for soldiers that are bothered by the policy is to not purchase any alcohol throught the class VI. We will see the true intentions of the command when alcohol sales go down. Soldiers are wrong for not conducting themselves as men "downrange" WEAK leaders are wrong for not being able to police their soldiers without limiting their freedoms. WEAK leadership is worse than alcohol, or the enemy, it destroys within….you do not need an enemy. The soldiers that do not abide by this new policy should be punished at the fullest extent of the UCMJ, if nothing just to see if there are enough Trial Defense Lawyers willing to work a little overtime. UCMJ is supposed to be a last resort to reform a soldier. If alcohol is a problem and many soldiers stated "we couldn't drink in Iraq…so why should here be any different?" They don't sell in Iraq either, and I am a drinker, and I support not selling alcohol, or drinking BAC of .10. Just spend money back in the clubs. That is where this policy is leading. Not for me, I just will stop any social drinking that I did. Let see what freedom is stripped from us from the next blotter report. The constitution and common sense does not determine our freedom…the blotter report and a knee jerk reaction does. I guess as long as a soldier has a piece of paper (DA 31) he can go out and drink as much as he wants.
I'm sorry, but this whole thing is just bizarre, like something out of "Idiocracy". The whole letter / policy strikes me as the product of fevered brains.
The policy, coupled with GIK's excellent brief on off-limits areas tells me all I need to know about why we're still in Iraq. General officers who draft and issue these sorts of policies simply aren't the kind of people who can anticipate what are called 'unintended consequences'.
I was aghast at how much of Itaeweon is off-limits. Okay, we put so many clubs in Itaeweon (the GI's after-dark habitat) off limits that you need a scorecard to stay out of trouble, so GI's gravitate to Hongdae, Apkujeong, and other places. Places that are Korean after-dark habitats. Two species coming into contact will have conflict over habitat, sooner, rather than later.
The ville has always been intended as a containment area, both by the command seeking to keep troops on a short leash for recall, and by the Koreans seeking to contain GI's to a smaller and more easily policed jurisdiction. When the command makes the ville a hostile/denied area, the troops are going to find somewhere else to go, where the command hasn't fucked things up yet.
It would be interesting to know, -purely from an academic standpoint, mind you, what percentage of GI atrocities occur outside the GI's natural after-dark habitat. Without a doubt, these would be the hardest for the command to damage-control, once the KNP's and media are involved.
So instead of taking a zoologist's view of the problem, the command decides to dabble in the sort of amateur social engineering the Army is so fond of, and which invariably fails to prevent or promote any given behavior, whether it be drinking or getting laid.
Of course there still remains the little discussed aspect: deliberate mass punishment. Once a body of the punishd gets hip to the fact that they are being toyed with this way, the consequences can be pretty devastating. All it takes is a handful of like-minded soldiers to start practicing political defiance, new and unexpected behavior that has yet to be outlawed, -flash mobs are a good example…the command had better get some brains while it still can. With every new unacceptable behavior, will come a new and even stupider policy letter.
In SERE school, we learned quite a few techniques to achieve and demonstrate crew integrity while in captivity, techniques that were meant to fuck with the captors. I'm wondering….
Sergeant Sellout,
The block on the DA31 says supervisor on one portion but it should also be signed by the commander as well. In my unit the 1SG would authorize who goes on pass and then on Friday give all the pass forms to the commander to sign. Then everyone going on pass would report to the commander's office to pick up their pass where the commander could talk to them and see what they were up to that weekend.
Having a corporal sign off on a pass form is not a good idea. I can understand why that would set off a debate about pass policies, but notice no focus in this latest policy has been put on passes it is on alcohol.
Bob,
The majority of serious incidents I have seen happen that make the Korean media are the ones that happen outside the ville areas. Stupid crap happens in the ville but the business owners let the MPs pick up GIs that get in trouble and the KNPs in the ville let the MPs take jurisdiction as well. Less paperwork for them to do. However, if a ville incident makes the media than the Korean police will take jurisdiction.
yes no focus on the current policy covers passes, because an uninforced policy already existed. that is why the command looked for almost a week at revamping the pass policy, and someone finally got the great idea (like with gun control) "hey lets just inforce the standards and policies already in place, lets don't reinvent the wheel"….Poor JAG, not only have they been working overtime all week, but I am sure after payday weekend they'll be getting more business. As for social defiance, I think only a few soldiers will actually try to implement that. Most Soldiers really live week to week, paycheck to paycheck and are just doing their time in the 2ID. I overhead two soldiers at a bus stop stating today that $1,000 a month would not be enough to AIP. Maybe the Command could use the new alcohol policy to cut back on AIP personnel, or was that just all the Sergeant Majors that constantly try to intimidate young soldiers into "NOT" AIP'ing. I have never been anywhere where the enlisted openly oppose the officers policies and programs in front of soldiers. Maybe there is already a discord in this aspect. To all though in this blog, I appreciate at least some intelligent debate over real topics. Anyone want to touch on why "Home Boy Pawn Shop" at Camp Casey (half way between the front gate and CIF)is full of RFI issued equipment and TA-50? But yet, maybe "Home Boy" can get the RFI equipment cheap enough to clear a profit… I am sure none of it is stolen from Soldiers, by Soldiers. Maybe that is why Soldiers that go into "Home Boy Pawn Shop" will pay the same price for used electronic equipment (i.e. IPODS)that the PX still has in stock. Why would a Soldier buy and item with no warranty, no discount, and already used? Maybe be cause "Home Boy Pawn" accepts more than "federal reserve notes". Theft is another complaint I hear from many of my soldiers. Of course "unsecure means Unwanted to some that would want to justify theft" but a thief is another enemy within that tears at morale, and the bonds that should be developing at the small unit level.
If we are going to talk about Theft, then lets add another question: How many Americans really like to eat "Ox Tail". If the number is as small as I think, than why is it sold in the Commercary?
As to, "unsecured means unwanted": that answer is yes. What are ya going to do, leave it at the field site? I found sleeping bags that no one would clam. Even an M40 pro-mask. Someone came for the Mask—three months later, and this was in Iraq! Yes, I gave it to him, after a few push-ups. No one came for the sleeping bag so I gave it to the Captain. He likely still has it.
If they have to pay for it, they will learn to hold on to it. Surprize TA-50 inspections on the weekend help also.
I once had a soldier in my unit busted who would steal primarily sleeping bags from the barracks because they brought in a good profit and stuff it into his backpack walk to the Casey ville and sell it down there. He was stealing to finance his juicy girl habit. I have always said that juicy girls are like drugs for some people and drug users often steal to finance their habit, this guy was no different. Enough soldiers eventually started having statement of charges filed on them that it became apparent to the commander that somebody was stealing from the barracks. The CQs were tasked to check anybody leaving the barracks with large bags.
Despite everyone in the unit knowing that there was a thief in the unit and on the look out for anyone leaving with a large bag this guy continued to steal and eventually got busted leaving the barracks with a sleeping bag in his backpack. When this guy went to court martial we found out how he was stealing. After PT the soldiers would run into their rooms and take turns showering and then go to chow. He would wait until one person left the room and then check the door to see if it was open and if the other soldier was in the shower. If the only soldier in the room was in the shower he would grab sleeping bags. He was able to get away with it for about three months before people caught on and the hunt was on for the thief.
Thievery is definitely a problem in 2ID compared to other units I have been to and it is mainly because people need to fund their juicy girl habit.
Everything involved with this, and all, policy letters restricting U.S. military members' rights in Korea is based on one thing, INDIVIDUAL IRRESPONSIBILITY. I realize that when we are talking about units in 2ID we are talking about individuals that number in the hundreds, but that does not excuse the fact that the ones that are committing offenses are of a generation that I call the "ME FIRST" generation.
Back when I was in Korea, granted I was in the Navy, but I remember a lot of partying going on and I don't remember a whole lot of people getting picked up by the MP's, SP's whatever about it. Why you ask? Well, a number of reasons, most notably that the culture in Korea for military people back then was far more lax than it is today, but that not withstanding, the reason we didn't have many people "on the blotter" was that we watched out for each other like a family. It wasn't something that was forced on us, like the "battle buddy" or "wingman" programs I've seen touted around. It was just an understanding that if you saw one of your buddies getting a little too drunk and rowdy, you gently steered them away from drinking and quietly escorted them back to the barracks where they could sleep it off in peace. Granted sometimes this didn't work and for those times you just kept an eye on whoever it was and kept them out of trouble.
Now given the atmosphere and culture of today, I'm not sure anything short of total lockdown is going to solve the problems we are seeing but I do agree with GIKorea in that the senior leadership is getting way too disconnected from those they are supposed to be leading. It's not 100% their fault either. It comes from an individual that who you could put through 100 years of training on how to conduct themselves while on pass, liberty, whatever you call it, and they would still do whatever the hell they pleased because it's the "ME FIRST" generation.
We're seeing the hard crackdown in Korea because:
1. The culture in the USA is so lax and there's too much emphasis put on individual rights rather than the good of whole.
2. There is no responsibility taken at any level of any part of our culture anymore. Just a growing need to "blame the other guy" and exact revenge.
3. The senior leadership as a whole is part of my (the Baby Boom) generation, and does not know how to deal with the youth of today because so many of their customs, cultures and mannerisms are foreign to us.
Allow me to get a bit radical here, most all of the problems in Korea started when "touchy-feely" liberalism snuck in the back door. Individual rights are now more important than the mission. To defend a nation you need to expect the restriction of a few personal liberties that you would enjoy on the outside for the term of your service. If you don't like that, do you your time and get out and go back to your "touchy-feely" world and leave the military alone. The way things are today, I'm surprised that every command is not assigned its own ACLU lawyer to make sure commanders aren't violating anyone's rights!!!
Time to stop, I'm getting worked up about something that I cannot do anything about. Sufficed to say that I'm glad and proud that I was able to serve my country by serving in the ROK. I'm just glad I didn't have to put up with the BS that is forced upon the USA, USN, USAF and USMC today in the name of individual liberties and rights.
To GIKorea… Good job! Keep up the good work!!!
Tim Miller (aka Exkorling)
Served in Korea (83-85, 88-92, 95-00)
So…I hear a lot of me me me going around on this blog. I agree about the .10 BAC rule….I dislike it as much as you do but what the hell did you expect was going to happen?
There are 30-40 blotter incidents every week that get reported up the chain of command. Of those about 80-90% are alchohol related and about 20-25% of those are underaged drinkers. Now you complain that there is no policy letter directed at underage drinkers. There is. Policy letter #8 specifically states NO underage drinking…it doesn't get any stronger then that. And for the person that was whining that they changed it from the Korean drinking age of 18 to 21 well go become a Korean then…me I'm an American and the drinking age is 21 by federal law.
So to understand why there are so many blotter reports being sent up we have to look at the average troop in Korea. He is a young soldier, just out of AIT and he thinks that he can do whatever he wants and no one has the right to tell him no. He hasn't learned responsiblity and there is no one to teach it to him because of the war in Iraq, Korea is chronically shorthanded of NCO's and Officers. You all serve or have served in Korea so you know exactly what I am talking about.
So you have all these troops "acting the fool", causing international incidents and violating all sorts of laws from thievery to rape to willful destruction of property. So what can they do? They put in some restrictive laws that hopefully would stop as many of these incidents as they can. Now you complain about "mass punishment" and of course it is but how else did you expect them to stop it? Those who are caught DO get punished but do you see that stopping anyone? It's only a one year tour so "examples" aren't around long enough to do any good. And besides that the idea is to PREVENT an incident before it happens. So if you can pull a "Minority Report" and gaze into your crystal ball and tell us all who is going to rape who then shut up about it. If you can't come up with a RATIONAL WORKING PLAN that is better then the one they have then quit grousing.
Rick,
You are missing my point. If the rise in ARI's are because of an increase in underage drinkers than why is there no policy to crack down on underage drinkers? Why a policy that cracksdown on everyone and then disguise it as "force protection" reasons?
As far as rational working plans I have already provided a rational working plan to crackdown on underage drinkers and it doesn't even require a mass punishment policy that is killing morale in 2ID:
http://rokdrop.com/2007/02/08/the-new-2id-alcohol…
Rick, Rick, Rick…
As "the person that was whining that they changed it from the Korean drinking age of 18 to 21", I see no need to "go become a Korean then".
What a statement.
"I’m an American and the drinking age is 21 by federal law."
No. You are a stupid cow, Rick.
This is not America… and there is no federal drinking age. Drinking age laws in the United States are all STATE laws… and Korea certainly isn't a state.
Federal law specifically states that American military installations can adopt the drinking age of the host country.
Therefore, the drinking age for American military members in Korea is 18 or 19, depending on birth date, by FEDERAL LAW… not the nonsense you (and leadership) dreams up and tries to force down our throats.
A drinking age of 21 for American servicemembers in Korea is a decision by an appointed commander, not a law passed by elected officials.
It is the confusion of the two which is slowly undermining our constitution, destroying our country and diluting the rule of law which guides it.
"I'm an American servicemember and the drinking age is 21 by order of my commander," is a statement I can respect.
Telling Americans in Korea they have to follow non-existent American laws "or become a Korean" is irritating and offensive.
As for solutions, many good ones have been proposed. The only problem is they require leadership instead of management.
J!
[…] 2ID Alcohol Policy So the unit that I just left has instituted a new alcohol policy which will breathalyze Soldiers returning from a night out. If you blow a 0.10 you are in for a hurtin’.See this post from GI Korea for details and sharp commentary. […]
[…] off duty) can have a BAC of more than .10…at any hour of the day… See details and comments at http://rokdrop.com/2007/02/10/2id-alcohol-consumption-policy-letter-posted/ Tags: (all tags) Display: Threaded Minimal Nested Flat Flat Unthreaded Sort: […]
[…] has been a bad boy and went over the .10% BAC regulation. He must not have been carrying his BAC card with him. Personally, I blame his battle […]
[…] next to me, and dried vomit all over my Seahawks coat. I’m not sure, but I may have been over .10 % BAC. My phone is going to the nearest SK Telecom or Motorola shop tonight, so don’t try to call or […]
[…] next to me, and dried vomit all over my Seahawks coat.  I’m not sure, but I may have been over .10 % BAC.  My phone is going to the nearest SK Telecom or Motorola shop tonight, so don’t try to call or […]
Here are some facts. If you have to drink to relieve stress, you're already screwed. Try buying a playboy you all meet the age requirement on that and there is no limit on how many times you can relieve stress with it per hour. Or if you need something more potent there are tons of free porn sites. Stress should not be an excuse. Not to mention you can spend more in Korea on beer in one night than you can on the hookers. I am not condoning that but…hey