Posted on Dec 12, 2013
Tough question. When a Commander goes down for inappropriate conduct, should all of their UCMJ action be reviewed?
77.5K
79
26
14
14
0
For example, our last Post Commander at Ft. Jackson was recently busted and relieved for an inappropriate relationship and other things. He was also known for his zero tolerance policy for the exact same thing. He actually made a speech about it the day before he was busted.<div>Can you say that his punishments were fair and impartial or even just? I am sure that some people were guilty, but this eliminates a Commanders credibility and integrity.</div><div>Should these people punished under him be retried so to speak?</div>
Posted in these groups: 
UCMJ
UCMJ
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 17
9
9
0
Isn't that what they do with Police Officers and Judges? I
don't think a review should be out of the question, since some of his or her
decisions on punishments directed toward subordinates may have been out of
retribution for some sort of whistle blowing. There would have to be a
determination made on whether or not the punishments issued were during the
time of alleged misconduct. I think it would be a good idea. When a Soldier
messes up, isn't it the first line supervisor (an NCO) who gets the scrutiny
and fingers pointed at them? So why would
a commander's decisions at the time of the misconduct not be reviewed?
(9)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I think they should be reviewed. What would need to be clarified though is a specified timeframe to review back, and maybe even if there is a precedence of action. Say the Commander is the convening authority over a case about drugs, but he is going down for adultery and has no prior issues of misconduct, then there may be no need to review. But if they have convened over multiple cases on drugs and has a no tolerance policy, etc, and has recently been popped hot, then review may be called for. Honestly I think it's a judgement call. Some Commander's may judge everything fairly, make a mistake of judgement, maybe even take responsibility for said mistake, while others may just convene how they see fit at the moment and not stick to their own policies.
The only issue with reviewing one, is you have to review them all. Make an SOP and either review all the Commanders being with offenses (maybe depending on level of severity), or don't review them. Can't be in between.
(2)
(0)
8
8
0
I would say no, there is a formal complaint mechanism already in place ART 138 (only have 90 days to submit) Beyond that you would need to use the appeals process and argue your case in court. Assuming your talking about Roberts did he make himself convening authority over certain offenses?
(8)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
I think there is a tendency in the UCMJ for officers reviewing cases to rely on the decisions already made by others. Commanders recommend cases to an Art 32 hearing, "Let them decide." Then the Art 32 folks, "Well, there commander sent them here for a reason.."
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
The problem and argument then is.... Do you have to take away the rank from all those that were promoted under his hand?? What about all the awards handed out with his signature? What about all the evaluations (good or bad) that he had part in? Do we go back in history and scratch all that because his "credibility and integrity were eliminated"?
In no way do I support what he may have done, but things at that level are filled with red tape and Bureaucracy to the point of no return. What if all UCMJ was redacted and some of those Soldiers were found guilty of more than they were charged with initially or heavier punishments were handed out??
In no way do I support what he may have done, but things at that level are filled with red tape and Bureaucracy to the point of no return. What if all UCMJ was redacted and some of those Soldiers were found guilty of more than they were charged with initially or heavier punishments were handed out??
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google