Is doing what is right or morally correct in today's conflicts, grounds for discharge?

(You're on the witness stand in this court-martial): What you have stated before this court is, quite simply, "the end does not justify the means." Is that correct? Yes, thank you. Is it, therefore, possible, sir, is it not, in fact, entirely probable that in a extremely volatile and intensely dire situation where a human life may be at great risk of imminent harm or death, that "the means can and should justify the end?" I suggest, sir, that not only is the latter probable, but that it is a daily occurrence in this country and all around the globe, just as is the former. When lives are at stake, whether potentially or actually, the ROEs must be amenable enough to match the unforeseen or the unexpected. And this court has a humanitarian duty, indeed, a moral obligation to support this exceptional soldier and find him not guilty of the charges filed against him on the grounds that he courageously acted upon his recognition of the imminent threat he foresaw in this case.

No further questions, your Honor. The Defense rests its case.

SCPO (Join to see) (I'm on the witness stand in a court-martial): "What you have stated before this court is, quite simply: "The end does not justify the means."; is this correct?"
Me: - "No Sir. What I indicated was that one, of several "correct ends", will justify the means. Clearly, the "correct end" selected by the member was not the "correct "right" end."
Wow... It even sounds funny as I write it! LOL!

No person anywhere, under any circumstance, can be charged for a result, read end, that is, as you put it, "correct" in one or more situations which is, also, "incorrect (read illegal)" in others. Your implication is that a "correct end" must meet certain criteria, which is indicated by your own words that a "correct 'right' end" is not the same from others, which are also correct. Not only is your answer funny, it is grammatically inconsistent since both words are defined in almost identical ways. Your statement and your logic is simply ludicrous and a good defense attorney would have a field day with that reply, either your first or second, with or without your additional explanation.

SCPO (Join to see) - My apologies Sr Chief. Should I respond to such posted articles in the future, I will refrain from inserting my attempt at humor and I will insure my presentation is grammatically correct and not ludicrous. I humbly withdraw my statement as clearly, I did not choose the "correct "right" end" in my previous comment to this post.... And my head hurts... :)