Military Justice; Is it Fair or is this a case of Rankism?

2015-04-09T03:07:50-04:00

Similar offenses conducted by both a commissioned officer and a senior NCO with a very different outcome in punishment.

Do you think these incidents were handled equally?

Is this a case of Rankism?

http://guardianofvalor.com/csm-perry-t-mcneill-found-guilty-of-stolen-valor-sentenced-to-reduction-in-rank-and-pay-forfeiture/

CSM Perry T. Mcneill Found Guilty Of “Stolen Valor”, Sentenced To Reduction In Rank And Pay...

Fort Sill, Oklahoma - A military judge has found CSM Perry T. Mcneillguilty of eight counts under Article 134 of the UCMJ, Wearing unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel buttons, and one count of making false official statements in violation ofArticle 107 of the UCMJ. According to the charges he woreboth the Ranger Tab and the Pathfinder Badge wrongfully and without authority on multiple occasions: on or...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 4:18 AM

2015-04-09T04:18:33-04:00

Man, I was thinking about posting this same thing. I like the use of the term Rankism. I seen that used by some others here.

But I did question why the difference between the officer realm and the enlisted realm. I don't think it is fair. That officer should be reduced to the last rank he had before claiming he had those awards. He used them to get a full time job in the National Guard. I would kill for a full time job down there at the WTC in Benning. I have been looking for full time work as an officer for a while. But for a guy to fake awards and get this job it is extremely upsetting. Just think how many guys were passed over for this that really did have ranger tabs.

I don't know if the officer culture is giving him a pass or if they are buddy buddy with him but he needs to be made an example of. If they don't they will make all officers appear to be above punishment for such acts.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 4:21 AM

2015-04-09T04:21:48-04:00

For what it's worth, I think they both should've been hung out to dry. I've never agreed with the preference senior ranks receive when it comes to issues like this. If anything the punishment should be more severe. When Gen. Chesty Puller had a negligent discharge he fined himself $100, 5 times the $20 fine an enlisted man would have paid. That is the mentality our leadership needs to have.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 6:40 AM

2015-04-09T06:40:37-04:00

Of course there is some rankism, but who can reduce, what a person can be reduced to etc. are all set by regulations and the manual for court martials. I would personally prefer consistency, but I wish in these cases, their benefits are affected so they can feel this failure well down the road, not monetarily, but so that they cant benefit from revisionist history later. Isn't this what David Hackworth did, stay away until his crimes were forgotten and then came back to be championed as a "Soldier's soldier", but his record says he was clearly morally corrupt.

In general though, the rankism rant is a slippery slope which maintains the officer-enlisted divide. I know that's not the intent of the question, but a concern nonetheless,

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 7:28 AM

2015-04-09T07:28:27-04:00

CSM Private RallyPoint Member CSM, of course it is.. and it's unfortunate for many reasons. 1. 0-5/E-9 pay grades committing these violations..?! Good grief. 2. There is a divide between Enlisted and Officers. It's not a degree either. I have a 4 year degree myself. The fact that Officers are not punished anywhere near the severity as Enlisted is a disgrace to the Army/Military in its self! Example: DUIs; My PL (great guy) received a DUI while I was attending the MSLC, and the only thing that happened to him was a move to Regiment. Anytime a Staff Seregant or below receives a DUI, every chain of command wants their job, rank, and money, every time! I'm not justifying any bad decisions nor misconduct, but there definitely needs to be a punishment for offenses that is the same for everyone. I don't buy in to the " well, his career is over" that senior leaders use as justification for their weak punishments for Officers.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Apr 9 at 2015 7:49 AM

2015-04-09T07:49:52-04:00

A classic "different spanks for different ranks" case. The caveat being that many times the level of punishment is directed/limited by the UCMJ or service guidance.

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Apr 9 at 2015 7:58 AM

2015-04-09T07:58:47-04:00

Rank has its privileges.

The LTC should be tried under Stolen Valor laws, as well as articles under the UCMJ and should see jail time. Numerous violations of Art. 92, and 134 throughout his career.

If you are required to have the Ranger tab, and other military school badges (Air assault etc) to apply for the job in which he held, he should be charged under the stolen valor act.

He won't receive the same punishment or worse (he should get worse because he is an officer) as the former CSM, because of rank.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 8:16 AM

2015-04-09T08:16:14-04:00

CSM, I don't think it's as simple as it appears. The CSM who committed the offense was almost certainly tried under a Summary Court-Martial. A SCM is only available to use against enlisted persons and serves as a glorified article 15. It allows a reduction in rank in cases such as this where an Art. 15 can't under the promotion authority requirement. The forfeitures are also consistent with a SCM. Also note an SCM doesn't appear as a federal felony conviction.

In the case of the officer, he can't go to SCM. He receives an Art. 15 or goes to a special court martial. A SPCM does appear as a federal conviction. Consequently, it's likely that the command (rightfully in my mind) thought a SPCM was too much. Therefore it was handled as an Art. 15. Therefore, as an Officer, his rank is untouchable under the promotion authority requirement. What bothers me is that under an Art. 15 his pay still should have been at play. However, this isn't unreasonable as a punishment. It's within the commander's discretion.

Interestingly this discretion is what pisses of sex assault victims, but is simultaneously one of the good things of military justice. The commander can temper the blade of Justice with compassion to make a punishment truly fair.

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Apr 9 at 2015 8:22 AM

2015-04-09T08:22:59-04:00

This shouldn't surprise anyone in the military. We all know that officer are special people, special people that deserve special treatment. The kind of treatment that is close to a master and slave relationship between an officer and enlisted. This good 'ole boys club that is tailored specifically for officer only because they make decisions so young man can die.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 8:35 AM

2015-04-09T08:35:28-04:00

Every time I see one of these, I keep asking myself why.
Both men had accomplished plenty in their careers. Why would they try to be more than they are? What did they hope to gain? The risk/reward just doesn't add up to me.

Having said that, the punishment should fit the crime. Both are guilty of self-aggrandizement, so I think the best remedy is public shaming. Having their stories all over the Army Times is a good start. Maybe others contemplating being a PX Ranger will think twice.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 8:53 AM

2015-04-09T08:53:31-04:00

CSM,
I think it is flagrant rankism (great term, btw). I dare think that the law will look at each case blindly and dole out a flat consequence since there are always variables, yet this seems to blatantly weigh in favor of the heavier lapel.

As a side note, I think that this is inexcusable. Irrespective of rank, both took an oath to lead by example. Epic failures there. I am sure that they each have stellar accomplishments earned and did not need to go the extra. But, alas, here we all are.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Apr 9 at 2015 9:44 AM

2015-04-09T09:44:47-04:00

Rankism is used in military Justice in two ways. 1. The "you should know better" the more senior you are the more you should know better so when you violate the law you may get a more severe form of justice. 2. The "good order and discipline" sometimes smacking a private harder than you would smack a CPT or MAJ may be just to show to other privates that they will get smacked.
Is fair. sure every case is considered by commanders on a case by case basis. The facts in one case may be highly similar but different. You also have to look at the impact of the Soldier on the unit and the impact of punishing or not punishing the Soldier.
I've been involved with cases for PVT's to CW3 to COLs all could have been similar all were given different justice. I've seen a PVt get a Company Grade Article 15 for something a CPT will get a GO Article 15. But I've seen a MAJ get a Letter of Concern for something a SSG would get a Court Martial. You can't give a "boom your guilty here is your punishment that the same guy before you recieved."

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 10:20 AM

2015-04-09T10:20:06-04:00

Aside from the high-profile and highly emotional issues such as sexual harassment or assault by a leader on a subordinate, nothing provides the moral compass check quite like how a command opts to handle incidents of "Stolen Valor" (SV) by those under their command and control. It is the ultimate test of values and "rights v. wrongs" within a command.

On the surface, this issue should seem cut and dried. Either you can substantiate with paper in your Service Record what you are wearing on your uniform and in your record photo or you cannot. If you cannot, don't put it on; yes, it really is that simple, 99.9% of the time. There are however exceptions, and thanks to the climate that SV has precipitated, good and decent men and women are being dragged through the ringer as a result.

Case in point, a former Army boss of mine; an Infantry Officer Lieutenant Colonel of great moral character, honest as the day is long, called home while we were on a mission at Fort Bliss last August to find that he was the recipient of a certified letter from the office of our Division Commander. He instructed his wife to open it, to learn, to their great, mutual shock, that he was being investigated for SV, for wearing unsubstantiated awards and decorations in his DA file photo.

Because he was up for an automatic look at O-6, someone at Division was reviewing his file. Somewhere along the way since he was last promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, all of the awards he received while a member of the Nebraska National Guard (mostly state awards, but 1 ARCOM and a Presidential Unit Citation) had been purged from his 201. When a review of his file photo revealed awards that were no longer found in his 201, the claxons sounded, the red lights flashed, and suddenly, this decent and honorable LTC found himself very much on the defensive. Because he was closing in on his MRD, he did not bother with reviewing his file or prepping his promotion packet. Fortunately for him, when the S1 was done (or thought they were done) digitizing his 201, they mailed him all of the paper copies back to him, so he could readily prove to the Division SJA that in fact he was not stealing anyone's damned valor, as he had so coldly and formally been accused; but this experience can and should serve as a cautionary lesson to all: There are eyes on you; if you think you can sneak something past a promotion board now, with their abilities to zero in with precise detail on every award, oakleaf cluster, V device; you're only fooling yourself.

I'll just close with the words of my former boss, when he got off the phone with the Division SJA after that initial contact last year: "If I were really intent on stealing valor, don't you think I'd aim a little higher than three Nebraska National Guard Achievement Medals, an ARCOM, and a Presidential Unit Citation? Whoever thinks they don't take this seriously is nuts!"

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2015 10:24 AM

2015-04-09T10:24:22-04:00

This article couldn't be more right. Regardless of how it should be, senior ranking individuals and those individuals depicted as the "golden child" does receive preferential treatment and more favorable actions. I think the more rank you have and the older you are, the more severe the punishment should be, because we should know better. I wouldn't expect the same punishment to be given to an 18/19 year kid for smoking marijuana versus a 30+ year old individual for the same crime.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Apr 9 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-04-09T10:33:00-04:00

CSM Mike Oldsen,
CSM Mcneill's case has been adjudicated and closed.
LTC Green III is still employed on base after signing a statement of wrongdoing in Sep 2014? Does the Army consider his case resolved?

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Apr 9 at 2015 11:49 AM

2015-04-09T11:49:35-04:00

For me, both should have stood a court martial. The CSM getting busted to SFC, and hopefully getting put out asap is good. While an OIC in command of a training situation gets an admin bust, not touching his pay seems a little lean when integrity of the school leadership is now on the block. I thought with all the cut backs and higher standards today (?) these types of actions would be hands down a career ender. I understand the Commander has Article 15 authority, but why is is so light in the so evident lack of the Army Values? Maybe these values need to be reviewed and all levels of command need to re-asses what these values really mean.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 9 at 2015 11:50 AM

2015-04-09T11:50:07-04:00

I bet this is more a case of the good ol boy network.....any takers?

Do what I say, not what I do! Both are poor examples of "Follow Me!"

Response by SSG Thomas Brousseau made Apr 9 at 2015 11:18 PM

2015-04-09T23:18:11-04:00

Commissioned Officers should be held to a higher standard.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Apr 10 at 2015 7:40 AM

2015-04-10T07:40:33-04:00

Totally unfair. Always has been, and probably always will be. Unfortunately, military justice mirrors civilian justice --- people at higher levels (economic, political, social, etc.) tend to get a different "justice" than the rest of us ...

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 10 at 2015 7:40 AM

2015-04-10T07:40:59-04:00

Good question CSM Private RallyPoint Member for which I have no good answer. Likely has to with who has authority can approve actions on officers verses enlisted Soldiers.

I dealt directly with more than one of these cases, and seen others. Seems like Officers are often handled admistratively (GMOR) and invited to resign/retiree. NCOs seem to be handled via Summary Courts Martial or hire; situation dependent. I need do ask a local defense attorney friend of mine here, and see what he knows. I do know removing a commissioned officer (dismissal) wherein they lose everything is not easy, and has to approved by SECARMY; so another reason officers are handled differently. Officers can be receive all characterizations of discharges, but can't be reduced in rank at Court Martial.

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_24.pdf

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 7:53 AM

2015-04-10T07:53:23-04:00

I served as a Company Commander underneath LTC Green during his tenure at the ARNG WTC. First and foremost I would like to appeal to everyone here that they do not equate LTC Green's behavior with the high standards of conduct of the Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers of the WTC - we are better than he made us seem to be, especially the NCOs and Soldiers. Seeing these stories side by side infuriates and confuses me. His fraudulent behavior was found out by one of the most professional NCOs I have ever had the pleasure of serving with, and that only touched the tip of the iceberg.

While I am apprehensive to comment on the inner workings of the ongoing investigation into LTC Green, what I will say is that everything that will happen to him has not come to public light yet, and when it does it should balance these scales quite a bit.

It is disheartening whenever I see a double standard enforced on our NCOs vice Officers. It is my personal and professional opinion that in this particular instance LTC Green's offenses were much more significant and profound than that of the CSMs. This is due in large part to the fact that he forged myriad documents and uploaded them into his OMPF - this is falsification of official government documents and is a felony under civilian courts. There is no way to prove the extent of the damages this fraudulent behavior brought upon the Army, the National Guard, and the various units LTC Green served in during his tenure as an Officer.

Rankism, protecting the organization, whatever you want to call it, but a duck is a duck... is a duck.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 10 at 2015 7:53 AM

2015-04-10T07:53:24-04:00

Here's my take. First, they should be treated the same way because why should this be a career ender in any case. The disparity diminishes NCOs across the board.

Two: Officers represent upper leadership and the prestige of our Armed Forces. I am not certain but that many of these myriad firings are politically-driven based on a person's politics.

Three: Overall, there is a perception problem and a problem of milking the largesse of the good times but we cannot go backwards either. We need mitigate actions and stop acting like a bunch of pricks because office politics and an unfavorable attitude against the military by the Secretary of the Services is trying to weed out conservatives.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 22 at 2015 5:44 PM

2015-04-22T17:44:52-04:00

CSM Perry was my classmate in USASMA, I never had the impression he'd do this, it does not make sense!

Response by CW3 Stephen Mills made May 31 at 2016 4:51 PM

2016-05-31T16:51:35-04:00

Reminds me of when I was a young MP and a new LT has a negligent discharge into the clearing barrel. (Personally I don't think it was negligent as that's what the clearing barrel is for, but I digress).

The Company Commander though the solution to prevent this from happening again was to have a E6 or higher monitor all E5's and below when they were clearing their weapons. I guess the fact it was a LT who actually made the mistake was lost on him, lol.