Posted on Apr 14, 2023
The Army Increasingly Allows Soldiers Charged With Violent Crimes to Leave the Military Rather...
921
5
2
3
3
0
Stationed at Army posts thousands of miles apart, two soldiers faced a flurry of criminal charges after they allegedly assaulted women within days of each other in early 2017.
One soldier was accused of physically assaulting his wife and firing a gun as she tried to flee their home near Fort Hood in Texas. Police later found a bullet hole in a window screen.
The other told investigators in Alaska that he’d had sex with a fellow soldier who he knew was drunk and incapable of providing consent. They later found DNA evidence of his semen on her shorts.
Military prosecutors deemed the cases strong enough to pursue them in court. But the Army instead kicked the soldiers out, allowing them to return to civilian life with scant public record of the accusations against them.
One soldier was accused of physically assaulting his wife and firing a gun as she tried to flee their home near Fort Hood in Texas. Police later found a bullet hole in a window screen.
The other told investigators in Alaska that he’d had sex with a fellow soldier who he knew was drunk and incapable of providing consent. They later found DNA evidence of his semen on her shorts.
Military prosecutors deemed the cases strong enough to pursue them in court. But the Army instead kicked the soldiers out, allowing them to return to civilian life with scant public record of the accusations against them.
The Army Increasingly Allows Soldiers Charged With Violent Crimes to Leave the Military Rather...
Posted from propublica.org
Crime
UCMJ
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
Sadly, this is representative of our culture today and not of the military justice system. There are numerous cases where prosecutors took the "easy plea deal" rather than holding someone accountable for their actions.
Separation in lieu of trial by Court-Martial is available to a defendant when they are facing charges and at least one of them would result in a punitive discharge. They can request an administrative separation, but it doesn't have to be granted (usually the general court-martial (GCM) authority is the one that would approve it). This is much like petitioning the DA to drop the charges and give you a lesser punishment (a punitive discharge in this case).
Why would the government grant a separation instead of going to trial? Usually it's done when they are concerned that they may not achieve a conviction and want the servicemember out of the military. Why concerned? Could be for a number of reasons - bad witnesses or one that doesn't want to testify, lack of physical evidence, conflicting 'facts', etc.
So it's a trade-off ... the government doesn't want to gamble that they won't be able to prove their case and the defendant doesn't want to gamble that they will be found guilty at trial, punitively discharged and face additional punishment.
Could it be abused by a GCM? Sure ... but unlikely. A GOFO (General Officer/Flag Officer) is usually the GCM and he'll take the advice of his JAG on the merits of the case and if it could be prosecuted successfully. Very, very few officers in those positions got there because of a popularity contest (otherwise known as an election) so any "public incentive to go easy so I can keep my job" isn't there.
Separation in lieu of trial by Court-Martial is available to a defendant when they are facing charges and at least one of them would result in a punitive discharge. They can request an administrative separation, but it doesn't have to be granted (usually the general court-martial (GCM) authority is the one that would approve it). This is much like petitioning the DA to drop the charges and give you a lesser punishment (a punitive discharge in this case).
Why would the government grant a separation instead of going to trial? Usually it's done when they are concerned that they may not achieve a conviction and want the servicemember out of the military. Why concerned? Could be for a number of reasons - bad witnesses or one that doesn't want to testify, lack of physical evidence, conflicting 'facts', etc.
So it's a trade-off ... the government doesn't want to gamble that they won't be able to prove their case and the defendant doesn't want to gamble that they will be found guilty at trial, punitively discharged and face additional punishment.
Could it be abused by a GCM? Sure ... but unlikely. A GOFO (General Officer/Flag Officer) is usually the GCM and he'll take the advice of his JAG on the merits of the case and if it could be prosecuted successfully. Very, very few officers in those positions got there because of a popularity contest (otherwise known as an election) so any "public incentive to go easy so I can keep my job" isn't there.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google