Posted on Jan 30, 2016
Should being HIV-positive AND having unprotected sex, when ordered not to, be punishable under the UCMJ?
168K
392
75
15
15
0
REPORT: WASHINGTON
Gavin B. Atchak’s commanding officer...ordered him to avoid unprotected sex after Atchak tested positive for HIV in 2011. The officer also directed Atchak, an enlisted man....to inform future sex partners that he carried the virus that can cause AIDS. Atchak disobeyed and engaged in unprotected oral and anal sex with...http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article57147868.html
Gavin B. Atchak’s commanding officer...ordered him to avoid unprotected sex after Atchak tested positive for HIV in 2011. The officer also directed Atchak, an enlisted man....to inform future sex partners that he carried the virus that can cause AIDS. Atchak disobeyed and engaged in unprotected oral and anal sex with...http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article57147868.html
Sexual Assault
UCMJ
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 50
0
0
0
Article 134 of the uniform code of military justice is a catch all. no matter what you do, if you are in the wrong you can still be punished.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
He deserves a death sentence for giving his victims a death sentence. And like it or not if his victims are military they get a military discharge, and 100% disability and All media bills paid for. That's how it needs to be.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes, you have an incurable (as I write anyways), sexually transmittable disease and have been issued a lawful order not to engage in unprotected sexual activity...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
BOTTOM LINE: He disobeyed a direct order. HIV aside...A legal order was given, received, and was not disputed. Therefore, yes. Punish him and move out.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
The military courts are now considering the likelihood of actual HIV transmission and how it factors into charging criminal assault--if the likelihood of transmission is low to nil, then that person shouldn't be charged with criminal assault, blah blah blah. My how times have changed...
(0)
(0)
SGM Joel Cook
I can see the point you are considering now to be a legal issue. Have you ever had the military briefing on the abridgment or reduction of your rights while you are on active duty? The Army was bad about not giving the briefing and then charging people with defying or ignoring it. For instance virtually all of the Bill of rights are abridged while we are on active duty. Like right to assembly but not in military uniform for protests or supporting an organization, or freedom of speech but you better not talk crap about your CDR or the POTUS, or right to keep and bear arms but only when and where your Commander says you can. So I am fairly certain that the right to personal privacy would also be reduced while on active duty as a needs of the military situation.
(1)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
SGM Joel Cook - I don't ever recall getting 'The Briefing' about signing away a significant number of my civil rights; it was something I and my shipmates learned as being part of military culture--that the UCMJ took precedence.
(0)
(0)
SGM Joel Cook
CPO Andy Carrillo, I don't remember the first time I ever got that briefing but it was after I was promoted to SFC pay grade E7 as a senior NCO. Every E7 and above NCO had to go to that briefing get handouts and then brief their subordinates. I only had vague ideas about more than 50% of the info in the briefing. Like you said much of what I did know I got from being a part of military culture. We had young soldiers that were asked to show up at protests in uniform that got on local news channel and they got Captains Mast for that even though they said they were not aware they were prohibited from doing that by UCMJ.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Perrotto
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS - you obviously do not read what you sign, it is in every contract
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google