What are your opinions on having all courts-martials and Article 15 readings be open for training purposes?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:28:42 -0400

At this time these events are considered public events and any one can watch them, however, my question is does anyone think that by making these events mandatory for the Soldiers in the unit to observe, either on a specific day or by substituting a training session for observance of this event, it would in any way deter criminal behavior in a unit?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 28 at 2014 4:33 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:33:34 -0400

Only once guilt has been officially determined. There's no point in besmirching the reputation of an innocent Soldier..

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2014 4:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:49:09 -0400

<p>This is a very touchy subject... Are there things to be learned from these...YES. Is it really necessary to completely embarrass a Soldier while they are at their lowest already for what might have been a simple mistake, in front of their peers...NO</p>

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 28 at 2014 5:49 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:49:01 -0400

Used to be that Art 15 results were posted on unit bulletin boards as well if I can remember back to when I got mine in late '88.....

Response by SSG Gordon Hill made Mar 29 at 2014 4:06 PM

SSG Gordon Hill — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:06:43 -0400

They should not be made mandatory, court martials are the military version of the civillian justice system would you want everybody you work with to attend it and it be made public to evryone you know, article 15 should be handle the way they have always been handle within that soldiers chain of command.

Response by SFC James Baber made Mar 29 at 2014 6:59 PM

SFC James Baber — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:59:59 -0400

SGT Riser,

My question to you is two part, isn't that already an option by the Soldier to have either a open or closed hearing, and 2ndly if it was open wouldn't you agree it could be a viable deterrent for others within the unit as to what could happen if they happen to go down that path.

On that note it was III Corps policy back in the 90s at Hood and all III Corps installations which included Sill that certain violations that required UCMJ or court-martial actions required open public hearings.

Prime example, there was a female SPC who was the leader of a local chapter of the Chicago Disciples street gang, they were doing extortion for hire, murder for hire, along with many other criminal activities, she was only a SPC, but had 15 SMs working for her on Hood conducting criminal enterprise activities in Killeen, Harker Heights, Copperas Cove and even Temple for over a year before the multitude of arrests took place. Her hearing was open to the public, and special reservations even had to be issued as so many people wanted to see the trial.

Now was this used for training or learning purposes, I guess that would be a personal determination by each individual that is affected or touched, I think it could have been as I don't recall anything even close to it ever occurring again.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2014 12:09 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 00:09:26 -0400

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that while Court Martials are open for viewing (depends on the severity of the charge) Article 15's are not. Unit's may post the results with names and key information blacked out. Every Article 15 reading that I have performed was done so in private with only the chain of command present and maybe the Soldier's first-line supervisor. Even night court was only conducted with the command teams present, since both the Company Commander's and 1SGs need to learn as much as possible about the process. Commander's needed the exposure since they possess the authority to "award Article 15s" and 1SGs attend so they can better understand the process when making recommendations to the commander. I have never "witnessed" an Article 15, even as a Company XO.....

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2014 2:30 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 02:30:10 -0400

IDK if the soldier got an Article 15 or not yet but there was an NCO who had a digression in regards to fraternization (not of a sexual nature). It was talked about publicly, he decided not to let the rumor mill do its thing, opting to tell what happened himself to half the battery. I feel that in itself was an excellent example of leadership. He was at least in part wrong and admitted to it, telling the soldiers to support their battle buddy and to not worry about it because it would distract from the mission.

Response by SFC A.M. Drake made Mar 30 at 2014 7:22 PM

SFC A.M. Drake — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 19:22:44 -0400

The Navy post theirs online every month from all over the world....I see it as a deterrent at best. Recruiting Command use to have a journal every quarter called Legal Eagle...however they discontinued it.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Mar 30 at 2014 10:58 PM

SGT Suraj Dave — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 22:58:17 -0400

Doesn't really matter. I got an ART 15 once when I was a PFC. It took over a month to go through. When it did, I knocked on the commanders door, reported ... got read my Art 15, got dismissed ....

It wasn't embarrassing. No one insulted me or degraded me. It was probably one of the most formal things I wouldn't expect to be formal. Later, my commander and 1sg pulled me aside and told me this wasn't the end. It was a slip up, and I would recover. I did. 2 weeks later my extra duty finished, like it never happened.

Response by SSG Gordon Hill made Mar 31 at 2014 8:04 PM

SSG Gordon Hill — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 20:04:05 -0400

No it should not be made mandatory for soldiers to attended, everyone entering the service receives training on the UCMJ system and that concerns judicial and non-judicial punishments

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Mar 31 at 2014 10:03 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:03:52 -0400

It sure would be enlightening wouldn't it be. I love the sentiment but I was COMSPAWARSYSCOMs Washington DC's Master At Arms and it would just be wrong. Horrible Experience for all, Me Marching you down in front of the Chief of Staff, Little Bit of Ceremony than the "Man" Verbally Thrashing you and assigning punishment. Sometimes I wondered whether I was there to conduct ceremony or protect the accused from the Admiral coming across the podium to beat him. No there is a reason it is private which is good for all.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2014 8:08 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:08:00 -0400

As an Article 15 is not an admission of guilt I think that they should be kept amongst the CoC and the troop. CM's are open to anyone already anyway so not really a lot to add to that. What I think should be done though is that all the CM findings and Article 15's should be published and distrubuted to service members as a deterence, kind of saying look at these people that are screwing up and we are catching them and punishing them. Publish the CM finding complete with names and everything, redact the names from Article 15's.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2015 6:15 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:15:12 -0500

I don't think it should be mandatory. I do agree that there is much to learn from reviewing past cases - they do it in law schools. However, I think the names should be changed or the individual should be able to give consent.

It is to easy to form an opinion about someone when looking at a file. Unfortunately, no paperwork in the military is a complete representation of an individual but for some that is all they see or hear. The out come of the case my be in favor of the individual but when looking over the case you still will retain the memory that that individual was investigated for the incident. Having open cases could create a bias opinion before the individual has a chance to prove him/herself.

Response by SPC John Lebiecki made Jun 24 at 2016 11:59 AM

SPC John Lebiecki — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:59:43 -0400

Personally I believe it takes away from the professionalism of the service along with the concept of dignity and respect for that soldier. Yes, they messed up (whether intentional or unintentional.) That doesn't make it right to violate the respect of that soldier (by the way, an Army value.)