Posted on Sep 20, 2014
Are there certain offenses that should kill a career regardless of rank or mitigating circumstances?
8.62K
139
45
6
6
0
I have hard that DUIs for an officer or senior NCO is a career ender. Yet I have seen some who have not been tossed out of the military. I have heard SHARP incidents are a death sentence to your career, but in the news you see some "skate" and maintain in the military. There was the Abu Ghraib that some say some were let off the hook while others were left out to dry and had to suffer the consequences of their and their subordinates' actions.
Are there truly any offenses that are bad enough to kill a career regardless of rank or mitigating circumstances?
Are there truly any offenses that are bad enough to kill a career regardless of rank or mitigating circumstances?
Rank
Law
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 26
11
11
0
My hard and fast rule is that there should be no hard and fast rules. Zero Tolerance is always a bad thing as there are always shades of gray.
That said, I haven't had any of these issues so with promotion rates on the decline if anyone in my MOS and year group would like to get a DUI and be removed from the service that would be fine by me.
That said, I haven't had any of these issues so with promotion rates on the decline if anyone in my MOS and year group would like to get a DUI and be removed from the service that would be fine by me.
(11)
(0)
SSG Robert Poorman
I've seen a good officer's career killed over missing equipment... bed sheets. Something that he could have paid for out of his pocket.
I've also seen an officer working in the Division Tactical Operation Center broadcast in the open Division radio frequencies and not have a damn thing done to him.
I've also seen an officer working in the Division Tactical Operation Center broadcast in the open Division radio frequencies and not have a damn thing done to him.
(2)
(0)
10
10
0
I feel that the Army makes decisions of how to handle offenses in ways that have nothing to do with the actual offense. If the decision is held to the local unit, the CDR makes a call, largely dependent on his/her overall view of the Soldier, whether to escalate things or not. If the decision is escalated, the call will come down to "needs of the Army." If the Soldier is in a critical MOS, or plays a critical role in the unit, more will be allowed to slide. That is the problem with the "case-by-case" system if it lacks any iron-clad guidance about who must review the case.
At the same time, I have seen the UCMJ abused by leaders who don't know how to work with deficient Soldiers (so rather than addressing the deficiency, they pursue a UCMJ action). I also have seen it used by bitter former spouses and jilted lovers to be vindictive (sometimes tying up the military justice system for years with endless petitions and appeals - a massive waste of resources).
In my opinion, the system is off the rails. The lack of consistency actually encourages military members to attempt to skirt the rules. If you took PSYCH 101, you should be familiar with the concept of Intermittent Reward schedules. Like a slot machine, intermittent rewards encourage repeat behavior. I am not advocating for Zero Tolerance crap because we are thinking, reasoning human beings and we should be looking very critically at these incidents and the drivers for these behaviors. Zero Tolerance puts punishment to the forefront and assumes that alone will serve as a deterrent. It's lazy and lacks common sense.
What I am advocating for is the concept that certain offenses (or offenses with specific conditions present) require review outside the chain of command. With today's technology (actually, with 1990's technology) it would be possible to have readers evaluate cases and give decisions digitally without revealing the names of the individuals and units involved. People would have more confidence in the handling of these cases if they knew that the resolution did not just come down to "commander's discretion." Additionally, there are places in the UCMJ that specifically say the issue should be resolved at the lowest level possible. That should be unalterable. There should be no such thing as an angry former spouse complaining to the brigade CDR to get a company level action escalated (or any level, this is just an example).
This is a near no cost solution - I'd argue it would be a cost savings. We need uniformity.
At the same time, I have seen the UCMJ abused by leaders who don't know how to work with deficient Soldiers (so rather than addressing the deficiency, they pursue a UCMJ action). I also have seen it used by bitter former spouses and jilted lovers to be vindictive (sometimes tying up the military justice system for years with endless petitions and appeals - a massive waste of resources).
In my opinion, the system is off the rails. The lack of consistency actually encourages military members to attempt to skirt the rules. If you took PSYCH 101, you should be familiar with the concept of Intermittent Reward schedules. Like a slot machine, intermittent rewards encourage repeat behavior. I am not advocating for Zero Tolerance crap because we are thinking, reasoning human beings and we should be looking very critically at these incidents and the drivers for these behaviors. Zero Tolerance puts punishment to the forefront and assumes that alone will serve as a deterrent. It's lazy and lacks common sense.
What I am advocating for is the concept that certain offenses (or offenses with specific conditions present) require review outside the chain of command. With today's technology (actually, with 1990's technology) it would be possible to have readers evaluate cases and give decisions digitally without revealing the names of the individuals and units involved. People would have more confidence in the handling of these cases if they knew that the resolution did not just come down to "commander's discretion." Additionally, there are places in the UCMJ that specifically say the issue should be resolved at the lowest level possible. That should be unalterable. There should be no such thing as an angry former spouse complaining to the brigade CDR to get a company level action escalated (or any level, this is just an example).
This is a near no cost solution - I'd argue it would be a cost savings. We need uniformity.
(10)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
CPT (Join to see)
CPT Wolfer,
I am a firm believer in the concept that the commander is responsible for everything a unit does or fails to do and, as such, I believe that entrusting him/her to decide on disciplinary matters is an integral part of the trust and confidence inherent in the duty responsibilities of command. While certainly not a perfect system, because humans are involved, I think it has served us well for over two centuries and I, for one, am reluctant to change it. Sure, there are sometime folks who make the wrong decisions but that is, as far as I can determine, a minority. As such, in situations like that, change the person (if necessary), not the system. I am sure there are some who “abuse the system”, as you stated, but I am also sure those are in the great minority. Maybe the Army needs to do a better job in educating officers about the UCMJ.
One of the problems we have in the military now is too much oversight; too many people with their fingers in the pie. Reminds me of the old saying “Too many cooks spoil the broth”… The recent effort to withhold authority from commanders for sex offenses is an example of the mentality that has permeated our society when it comes to the military. I am not at all saying that there is not a problem in the military, but I am saying that the problem needs to be fixed in the military, not by a bunch of non-military political hacks. And, as far as your comment about having electronic readers “evaluate cases and give decisions digitally”, I hope you were not serious. I can think of nothing worse than a system like that.
Concerning “commander’s discretion”, that is a foundation of the system that needs to remain in place. I am not at all in favor of standardized punishments for offenses. Every situation and every person is different and should rightfully be considered. If two soldiers commit the exact same offense, should they both receive the exact same punishment? Some think so. I do not. What if one soldier has been in trouble before and, for the other, this is his first offense? Should the first offender not be given a little more leniency than the repeat offender?
Commanders have the authority to withhold jurisdiction, if they want to. Many battalion commanders, for example, withhold jurisdiction from company commanders for DUI, drug offenses and, now, sexual offenses. Many times, jurisdiction is withheld for certain ranks, typically Junior NCOs at battalion level and Senior NCOs and officers at brigade or higher level.
Soldiers have the right to decline an Article 15 and demand a trial by court-martial if they feel they are not guilty or do not “trust” the chain of command to treat them fairly. Taking UCMJ action out of the hands of commanders, getting input from computers, requiring review by persons outside the chain of command, etc. are all ideas that will further erode the commanders’ authority and, as a result, further erode the military.
Is the system perfect? No… Because humans are involved. We need to identify those instances where the system fails and fix that failure, not trash the whole system.
CPT Wolfer,
I am a firm believer in the concept that the commander is responsible for everything a unit does or fails to do and, as such, I believe that entrusting him/her to decide on disciplinary matters is an integral part of the trust and confidence inherent in the duty responsibilities of command. While certainly not a perfect system, because humans are involved, I think it has served us well for over two centuries and I, for one, am reluctant to change it. Sure, there are sometime folks who make the wrong decisions but that is, as far as I can determine, a minority. As such, in situations like that, change the person (if necessary), not the system. I am sure there are some who “abuse the system”, as you stated, but I am also sure those are in the great minority. Maybe the Army needs to do a better job in educating officers about the UCMJ.
One of the problems we have in the military now is too much oversight; too many people with their fingers in the pie. Reminds me of the old saying “Too many cooks spoil the broth”… The recent effort to withhold authority from commanders for sex offenses is an example of the mentality that has permeated our society when it comes to the military. I am not at all saying that there is not a problem in the military, but I am saying that the problem needs to be fixed in the military, not by a bunch of non-military political hacks. And, as far as your comment about having electronic readers “evaluate cases and give decisions digitally”, I hope you were not serious. I can think of nothing worse than a system like that.
Concerning “commander’s discretion”, that is a foundation of the system that needs to remain in place. I am not at all in favor of standardized punishments for offenses. Every situation and every person is different and should rightfully be considered. If two soldiers commit the exact same offense, should they both receive the exact same punishment? Some think so. I do not. What if one soldier has been in trouble before and, for the other, this is his first offense? Should the first offender not be given a little more leniency than the repeat offender?
Commanders have the authority to withhold jurisdiction, if they want to. Many battalion commanders, for example, withhold jurisdiction from company commanders for DUI, drug offenses and, now, sexual offenses. Many times, jurisdiction is withheld for certain ranks, typically Junior NCOs at battalion level and Senior NCOs and officers at brigade or higher level.
Soldiers have the right to decline an Article 15 and demand a trial by court-martial if they feel they are not guilty or do not “trust” the chain of command to treat them fairly. Taking UCMJ action out of the hands of commanders, getting input from computers, requiring review by persons outside the chain of command, etc. are all ideas that will further erode the commanders’ authority and, as a result, further erode the military.
Is the system perfect? No… Because humans are involved. We need to identify those instances where the system fails and fix that failure, not trash the whole system.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
COL Jean (John) F. B., Sir,
I feel you have greatly misinterpreted what I wrote. I advocate increasing the number of officers reviewing cases - something that could be done electronically - which in no way was intended to imply that non-military personnel would be involved or that the computer would decide. Just to clarify one more time: military officers would be putting their decisions into the computer allowing more visibility and assistance for the commander decision their own case. The mystical computer is not making a magic box decision.
As I pointed out, in the civilian judicial system, judges with no legal training and no history of dealing with similar offenses do not ever, ever, ever decide cases. In the Army, cases that do not go to Court Martial are routinely decided by untrained, inexperienced, and largely unsupervised personnel. I get it. In an expeditionary environment, we cannot hold full courts martial for every offense, but we can provide tools (the computerized database) and supervision that is currently completely lacking.
Frankly, sir, I am sick to death of the "Army needs to fix the Army" excuse regarding sexual offenses. More than a decade of research, training, sensing sessions, and more, and not only is it not fixed, but there's a pretty rock solid plan to keep things, at least when it comes to handling the outcomes of cases, exactly the same. Sir, the surest way to convince civilians take these decisions out of our hands is to continue to get it wrong. I assure you: we *are* getting it wrong right now.
The system is imperfect. We agree there. I at no time said, implied, or advocated for trashing the whole system, sir. Never said to throw out UCMJ or anything radical. But I do know with complete certainty that commanders at all echelons need both more support and more supervision - from peers and superiors within the Army.
Everyday, we are failing Soldiers, sir. We are failing Army Families. I have identified where the system is failing and provided a potential solution. Whether I'm right or I'm wrong, I'm attempting to advocate for trying to solve the problems instead of more talking in circles.
I feel you have greatly misinterpreted what I wrote. I advocate increasing the number of officers reviewing cases - something that could be done electronically - which in no way was intended to imply that non-military personnel would be involved or that the computer would decide. Just to clarify one more time: military officers would be putting their decisions into the computer allowing more visibility and assistance for the commander decision their own case. The mystical computer is not making a magic box decision.
As I pointed out, in the civilian judicial system, judges with no legal training and no history of dealing with similar offenses do not ever, ever, ever decide cases. In the Army, cases that do not go to Court Martial are routinely decided by untrained, inexperienced, and largely unsupervised personnel. I get it. In an expeditionary environment, we cannot hold full courts martial for every offense, but we can provide tools (the computerized database) and supervision that is currently completely lacking.
Frankly, sir, I am sick to death of the "Army needs to fix the Army" excuse regarding sexual offenses. More than a decade of research, training, sensing sessions, and more, and not only is it not fixed, but there's a pretty rock solid plan to keep things, at least when it comes to handling the outcomes of cases, exactly the same. Sir, the surest way to convince civilians take these decisions out of our hands is to continue to get it wrong. I assure you: we *are* getting it wrong right now.
The system is imperfect. We agree there. I at no time said, implied, or advocated for trashing the whole system, sir. Never said to throw out UCMJ or anything radical. But I do know with complete certainty that commanders at all echelons need both more support and more supervision - from peers and superiors within the Army.
Everyday, we are failing Soldiers, sir. We are failing Army Families. I have identified where the system is failing and provided a potential solution. Whether I'm right or I'm wrong, I'm attempting to advocate for trying to solve the problems instead of more talking in circles.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
CPT (Join to see)
CPT Wolfer, first, let me say that I have read many of your comments on a variety of posts/topics on RallyPoint and have always found them to be very insightful, straightforward and right on target. I have always agreed with what you said and how you said it. This time, however, I simply do not agree with you on many counts. Maybe it is because I still don't completely understand your recommendation about having a computer "provide more visibility and assistance for the commander's decision on their own case". If you mean that the commander would be able to go into a data bank and find similar cases and see how they were adjudicated and what punishment was administered, I guess that would be helpful. However, I assume any good commander would do something of that sort already, by seeking guidance/counsel (not undue command influence) from his/her chain of command, discussing options with his/her First Sergeant or Command Sergeant Major, and discussing the situation with his/her peers before taking action. I honestly do not believe that most commanders simply shoot from the hip.
Although I think that your premise that commanders are "untrained and inexperienced" (and I am assuming you mean company commanders here, as most battalion and brigade commanders are not inexperienced) may have some merit, they typically have experienced 1SGTs and a chain of command to assist them.
A commander's exercise of non-judicial punishment for minor infractions is not much different than a civilian manager/boss exercising discipline in the civilian world. Managers in the civilian world can suspend people from duty (with or without pay), can reduce them, can terminate them, etc. While, typically, a civilian manager may not be able to restrict someone to their quarters (although I have certainly been in places where I could do that to my employees), the power of a commander in the military and the power of a manager/boss in the civilian world are similar. Are you advocating that they, also, should refer to some computer program to tell them what they should do?
Is there some sort of computer algorithm that will spit out the course of action the commander should take? I just don't understand this whole computer-assisted justice you seem to be advocating.
Let's also not forget that commanders have access to JAG to assist them in their decisions. Smart commanders avail themselves of that resource before embarking on a course of action concerning legal matters. I will point out here, however, that I have, on occasion, not followed the advice of JAG (or, in some cases, went "JAG shopping" to find one that supported what I wanted to do).
I, for one, do not think that the Military Justice system is broken and in need of being fixed. Do some need more training and experience? Sure. Is the civilian judicial system any better than the military system? Not in my opinion. I can cite just as many or more "bad decisions" in the civilian judicial system as can be cited in the military system. Neither system is perfect...
Commanders need to retain the authority to maintain good order and discipline in their units. Inherent in their ability to do so is the ability to administer discipline, and a key component of that is non-judicial punishment.
For the more serious offenses, or, if the service member so decides on non-serious matters, the cases are referred to a Court Martial. I think that the Court Martial system is as good, or better, than the civilian judicial system. I have not seen the "questionable" verdicts or punishments in the military system that I frequently see in the civilian system, although I realize part of that may be due to the general lack of publicity concerning non-sensational military cases.
What we do not need is non-military people dictating the actions of military commanders as far as UCMJ is concerned. Yes, I am aware of civilian control of the military, but I am talking about getting down in the weeds, not over-arching control. The whole "sexual offense" issue in the military has become a "cause celeb" for the liberal anti-military "War on Women" crowd. Now, before you get upset about that comment, I am not stating that I don't think sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc. are not a problem in the military. They certainly are and something needs to be done about it. I steadfastly think, however, that it needs to be fixed from within, not from without. I disagree with your assessment that it can only be fixed from outside the military. The same situation exists outside of the military as it does inside the military. It is just more apparent in the military because of the 24/7/365 nature of the military.
Do you think that sexual harassment/sexual assault is not happening at WalMart, Google, Macy's, police departments, fire departments, Bank of America, Outback Steakhouse, and on, and on, and on??? Of course it is. It is not a "military problem" alone. What makes it different is that the military cares about and is responsible for what goes on 24/7/365. If an employee of Target commits a sexual assault in his apartment after work, his manager probably will not be involved and certainly will not be involved in the legal aspects of the case. Not so in the military... The military has to solve this problem on its own and I believe they will. They do not need outside people calling the shots. As far as outside people "calling the shots", they need to ensure their house is in order before attempting to do so and I assure you, it is not. I am "sick to death" too, but I am sick to death of the erosion of the military by outsiders with no military experience trying to insert themselves into something they don't understand.
I think the military is taking better care of its employees (soldiers) and families than is being done in the civilian world. I do not for a second think we are failing soldiers and families. Sure, there are isolated cases and there always will be. But that should not be an indictment on the entire military.
You make some good points and I agree it is something that needs to be corrected. Additional training, experience, emphasis, coaching, counseling, etc. are all needed. What is not needed is outside pressure or undue influence from folks who don't have a clue and are simply pushing one agenda or another for political purposes. That is what I see happening now ... Pure and simple.
CPT Wolfer, first, let me say that I have read many of your comments on a variety of posts/topics on RallyPoint and have always found them to be very insightful, straightforward and right on target. I have always agreed with what you said and how you said it. This time, however, I simply do not agree with you on many counts. Maybe it is because I still don't completely understand your recommendation about having a computer "provide more visibility and assistance for the commander's decision on their own case". If you mean that the commander would be able to go into a data bank and find similar cases and see how they were adjudicated and what punishment was administered, I guess that would be helpful. However, I assume any good commander would do something of that sort already, by seeking guidance/counsel (not undue command influence) from his/her chain of command, discussing options with his/her First Sergeant or Command Sergeant Major, and discussing the situation with his/her peers before taking action. I honestly do not believe that most commanders simply shoot from the hip.
Although I think that your premise that commanders are "untrained and inexperienced" (and I am assuming you mean company commanders here, as most battalion and brigade commanders are not inexperienced) may have some merit, they typically have experienced 1SGTs and a chain of command to assist them.
A commander's exercise of non-judicial punishment for minor infractions is not much different than a civilian manager/boss exercising discipline in the civilian world. Managers in the civilian world can suspend people from duty (with or without pay), can reduce them, can terminate them, etc. While, typically, a civilian manager may not be able to restrict someone to their quarters (although I have certainly been in places where I could do that to my employees), the power of a commander in the military and the power of a manager/boss in the civilian world are similar. Are you advocating that they, also, should refer to some computer program to tell them what they should do?
Is there some sort of computer algorithm that will spit out the course of action the commander should take? I just don't understand this whole computer-assisted justice you seem to be advocating.
Let's also not forget that commanders have access to JAG to assist them in their decisions. Smart commanders avail themselves of that resource before embarking on a course of action concerning legal matters. I will point out here, however, that I have, on occasion, not followed the advice of JAG (or, in some cases, went "JAG shopping" to find one that supported what I wanted to do).
I, for one, do not think that the Military Justice system is broken and in need of being fixed. Do some need more training and experience? Sure. Is the civilian judicial system any better than the military system? Not in my opinion. I can cite just as many or more "bad decisions" in the civilian judicial system as can be cited in the military system. Neither system is perfect...
Commanders need to retain the authority to maintain good order and discipline in their units. Inherent in their ability to do so is the ability to administer discipline, and a key component of that is non-judicial punishment.
For the more serious offenses, or, if the service member so decides on non-serious matters, the cases are referred to a Court Martial. I think that the Court Martial system is as good, or better, than the civilian judicial system. I have not seen the "questionable" verdicts or punishments in the military system that I frequently see in the civilian system, although I realize part of that may be due to the general lack of publicity concerning non-sensational military cases.
What we do not need is non-military people dictating the actions of military commanders as far as UCMJ is concerned. Yes, I am aware of civilian control of the military, but I am talking about getting down in the weeds, not over-arching control. The whole "sexual offense" issue in the military has become a "cause celeb" for the liberal anti-military "War on Women" crowd. Now, before you get upset about that comment, I am not stating that I don't think sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc. are not a problem in the military. They certainly are and something needs to be done about it. I steadfastly think, however, that it needs to be fixed from within, not from without. I disagree with your assessment that it can only be fixed from outside the military. The same situation exists outside of the military as it does inside the military. It is just more apparent in the military because of the 24/7/365 nature of the military.
Do you think that sexual harassment/sexual assault is not happening at WalMart, Google, Macy's, police departments, fire departments, Bank of America, Outback Steakhouse, and on, and on, and on??? Of course it is. It is not a "military problem" alone. What makes it different is that the military cares about and is responsible for what goes on 24/7/365. If an employee of Target commits a sexual assault in his apartment after work, his manager probably will not be involved and certainly will not be involved in the legal aspects of the case. Not so in the military... The military has to solve this problem on its own and I believe they will. They do not need outside people calling the shots. As far as outside people "calling the shots", they need to ensure their house is in order before attempting to do so and I assure you, it is not. I am "sick to death" too, but I am sick to death of the erosion of the military by outsiders with no military experience trying to insert themselves into something they don't understand.
I think the military is taking better care of its employees (soldiers) and families than is being done in the civilian world. I do not for a second think we are failing soldiers and families. Sure, there are isolated cases and there always will be. But that should not be an indictment on the entire military.
You make some good points and I agree it is something that needs to be corrected. Additional training, experience, emphasis, coaching, counseling, etc. are all needed. What is not needed is outside pressure or undue influence from folks who don't have a clue and are simply pushing one agenda or another for political purposes. That is what I see happening now ... Pure and simple.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
For Commanding Officers of a commissioned naval vessel there's a very real likelyhood of removal for cause and the end of your career if you "hazard a vessel" and collide with another vessel, run aground, or fail to "protect one's vessel at all costs". Rank, postion or years of service are no protection for any officer under those circumstances.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google