“Was that the ‘Screw 0bama’ or somthing else?”
Silly hyperbole. I find it funny that a rant like that is believed to be a violation of Article 34.
“Nobody has to follow unlawful orders, so that isn’t a big deal. He ignored the counseling”
You’ve got this mixed up. It is the superiors that ignored the content of what the counseling was related to. His qualification of “unlawful orders”, is critical to the charges.
Superiors, even in the military, are sometimes wrong. So, are courts. Initially, I thought he was obviously wrong, due to the warnings from his superiors. But, I’d like to see how the “unlawful orders” was refuted by the prosecutor. That should have changed things. I’ll bet the refutations were weak at best.
I doubt it, it looks like the content of the postings violated the policy; 'Screw 0bama' likely would. If the content had been verbal instead of written, no problem. Ignoring the counseling repeatedly is what got him an OTH.