Regarding Lt Col James Wilkerson, USAF
In case anyone’s forgotten: Lt Col Wilkerson is the former Aviano AB IG who was convicted of sexual assault by a General Court-Martial and was sentenced to 1 year of confinement plus dismissal (the equivalent of a Dishonorable Discharge for an officer). However, his sentence was set aside by his then-commander, Lt Gen Craig Franklin – ostensibly, in part because Lt Gen Franklin felt Wilkerson was a “committed husband”.
Lt Gen Franklin’s action caused huge amount of consternation at the time – IMO, rightfully so. I mean, really: what’s the point of holding a court-martial at all if you’re going to ignore the verdict?
Well, it appears Wilkerson will only be a Lieutenant Colonel a short while longer. Seems he got a “show cause” letter regarding his retention on active duty from the CG of Air Combat Command, Gen Mike Hostage, recently. Since he had 20+ years of active service, Wilkerson opted to retire rather than appear before a board of officers considering his retention.
However, the acting SECAF – The Honorable Eric Fanning – has determined Wilkerson did not serve successfully at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. (No joke.) He’ll thus retire as a Major, effective 1 January 2014.
Funny how a felony conviction for a morally reprehensible act – even if later set aside – causes most people to view the individual who was convicted, isn’t it?
No, it’s probably not adequate justice in this case. But it’s better than nothing.
It also appears that his GCM conviction wasn’t the first incident of sexual impropriety of which Wilkerson has been guilty. The USAF revealed in June that further investigation determined Wilkerson had had an extramarital affair and fathered a child out-of-wedlock some 9 years or so ago.
I wonder if Wilkerson’s wife knew about the earlier affair and kid – and if she will dump his ass after he retires?
Wilkerson was a Major at the time of his affair. Unfortunately, the statute of limitations for that misconduct is 5 years. I’m guessing the acting SECAF felt he couldn’t use that misconduct as justification to rule Wilkerson’s service as Major unsatisfactory due to said statute of limitations. I’m also wondering how Lt Gen Franklin feels about setting aside Wilkerson’s conviction now.
In any case: it certainly looks like this guy being “invited” to leave active duty is an example of “good riddance”. IMO, it’s a pity it had to be put off for nearly a year due to an ill-advised action on the part of one of his previous commanders.
Ditto the fact he’s being allowed to retire at all.
Gee, I wonder how big of a shitbag General Franklin feels like now? Cases like this are why the know-nothing do-gooder types in Congress feel compelled to stick their noses into a system which (usually) works, certainly far better than the civilian model in many cases.
Too bad he couldn’t retire as a 2LT
TC: true justice IMO would have been a Dismissal and no retirement. But it appears that his CG cut him a huge break on that score by setting aside his GCM conviction.
A good case could be made for the retirement of Lt. Gen Franklin as well. “Committed Husband” sounds like something one of the “evangelicals” would say.
Whose knob did he polish to get that kind of special treatment? An Enlisted Man would have gotten at least a Big Chicken Dinner after a stint in Confinement!!
Frankly, just because the statute of limitations had expired on the adultery and child out of wedlock, that should have been under consideration when deciding the highest grade honorably held. He should have retired as a Captain.
TC I agree with you. They should have retired him as a 2nd Lt. lower than that would have been good.
[…] at This Ain’t Hell has this great post up called “Regarding Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, […]
#3 Honda, completely agree, but the next best thing would have been to bust him down to 2LT. At least someone stepped in and administered a little bit of justice.
Lock him in a cell and force him to watch all of those sexual assault videos that we minions have to sit through until he dies.
However, his sentence was set aside by his then-commander, Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin – ostensibly, in part because Lt. Gen Franklin felt Wilkerson was a “committed husband”. The general decided to explain his actions, and the memo is here. He said he set it aside because he was not convinced by the evidence and not just because he was “cutting a break” to a “committed husband.” (The latter was just a piece of evidence he considered.) Read the whole memo and see. Unfortunately, reporting on the subject tends to be heavily biased by rape-guilt ideology, and what you said is how Stars and Stripes reported it. Maybe LTG Franklin wasn’t telling the truth about his reasons but what he says seems entirely plausible to me. I haven’t read the whole record of trial but it is available here. If you click on the Article 32 report you can get a shorter version of the evidence than if you go through all the trial exhibits and transcript, and make an informed decision as to what you think of the evidence. Based on the 32 summary alone, as is typical in military sex assault cases, the only evidence of guilt is “she said so.” The main evidence against is that he went to bed with his wife (who is apparently a light enough sleeper to have been awakened by this other girl’s post-midnight downstairs phone talk), yet the wife was not awakened by any stealthy sneak-down by the husband. And he says he didn’t, and there’s no physical evidence. But others who read more thoroughly may find something I didn’t. Lt. Gen. Franklin’s action caused huge amount of consternation at the time – IMO, rightfully so. I mean, really: what’s the point of holding a court-martial at all if you’re going to ignore the verdict? Right now there is a huge amount of political pressure on military leadership to have the maximum number of trials in sex assault cases — that is one reason why sex cases go to trial on weak evidence all the time. That’s also why the rate of… Read more »
P.S. – I see the FOIA site I linked to doesn’t include the whole record of trial…in particular, I don’t see a link to the trial testimony. But I think it includes enough to give whoever has the time for it a much stronger sense of what the evidence was than any reporting on the case will have done.
General Courtmartial? Guilty! how the hell do you totally ignore that? If it was an enlisted man he would have been reduced to E-1 and forfieted all pay and allowances. This shitbag gets 0-4 retirement pay and full benefits, including tricare and VA.
I have to admit, upon reading his letter, I’m convinced that he’s convinced he did the right thing by overturning the Courts Martial conviction. And, based upon his reading of the Courts Martial record, I might also be inclined to see things the way he did. There should have been a similar letter from the prosecution, giving a counter-point to the General’s points.
I disagree. His receiving ANY retirement should have been axed.
Just another example of how officers generally skate out of being held accountable, when those same ones will destroy the life of an enlisted member.
This guy gets off free, with no mention of having to register as a sex offender either.
@2 TC Too bad he couldn’t retire through Leavenworth.
IIRC, Lt. Gen. Franklin also recommended that the good Lt. Col. be promoted to full bird ASAP. Unfortunately, I am unable to read the letter at this time, but I’m sure it states the general’s reasons for setting aside the conviction in a convincing manner. The excerpts have some validity, but I still disagree with the general’s decision. This is, in some way or another, an example of why civilians think that the military justice system is a joke. IIRC, the general and Wilkerson went back a ways, and the correspondence I’ve read–in which Lt. Gen. Franklin reassures Wilkerson that he’ll do everything possible to get him a good assignment and promotion to Col.–indicates the “good ol’ boy” system is still in place. Let’s suppose that this was 1st Lt. Wilkerson, newly assigned and fresh out of flight school. Would he have the support of a general officer then? How about if it was Master Sergeant Wilkerson or Senior Airman Wilkerson? I think we all know the answer. The general weighed the risk versus the reward. Sticking his neck out for a fellow aviator who had been selected for Colonel might have been considered worth the blowback. Sticking it out for an unproven junior officer or a lowly enlisted man would have been unfathomable. Maybe Wilkerson was falsely convicted. Even if so, his adultery and bastard child mean that his demotion was well earned. It sucks for him, but if SSG fm2176 were convicted of sexual assault, I’d be lucky to get 5 years, much less one. No O-9 would toss the conviction aside. Additionally, if it were discovered that I had committed adultery my command would seek ways to punish me even if the statute of limitations had expired. If I could retire with a reduction of only one rank I’d count myself fortunate. At the end of the day, the now-former Lt. Col. had an advantage that very few officers, and even fewer enlisted, receive. Due mostly to this case, the entire military’s system of sexual assault prevention and response was shaken up. If Wilkerson is indeed innocent,… Read more »
Smh officers for the mostpart will always cover officers….had a situation at ntc at ft irwin right before iraq invasion….we were training on trench clearing…did 4 dry runs to learn the lay of the land….out captain..we called him ranger danger…decided to add a few things to the trench course for our live fire run….long story short…on a corner that zig zagged we knew was clear of debris or cover lead man threw a grenade…ranger danger in his great decision making decided to put up a barricade on it…grenade thrown…grenade bounced back…no serious injuries where limb or life was lost but a few guys ended up with shrapnel in them…cid investigation…extra week in the field while they did that….outcome…nothing….he was still our commander without even a slap on the wrist….this was also a commander who was former supply and went to what was called then rip..now called rasp…made it and someone in their infinite wisdom decided to put him incharge of a line unit…also because of his purely asshole ways of fucking with us time and time again..had the highest awol rate in all of 3rd ID. Yet noone higher up thought to take a look into why a company that was always being praised suddenly went to shit.
So what you all are saying is essentially that the higher up the ladder someone sits, the more the so-called privilege of rank protects him.
In the ‘real’ world, it’s not quite so easy to keep your seat on the corporate ladder if you can’t behave yourself. If you’re enough of a screw-up or an embarrassment to the company you work for, you don’t keep your job.
On the other hand, haven’t we recently seen the ‘top of the line’ officers who can’t behave exposed by the media for being loose in the hilts?
Just what does it take for military personnel at all levels to stop acting like they’re in some kind of post-adolescent summer camp? Is no one ever going to tell these people to go the f@ck up?
Allright. In defense of the officer corps, Not all of us are shitbags who will cover down for people that screw up. Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter what your rank. If a military jury found him guilty, unless there’s a godamn good reason, the commanders ought to abide by that ruling. This is the information age, ladies and gentlemen. Every decision we make can and will be scrutinized. I do wonder where we lost the attitude of the everlasting axiom: Do the right thing.
Additionally, I hate, hate hate, that the officers seem to weasel out of this stuff. As far as I’m concerned, they ought to get twice the penalty of the enlisted men, because we ought to know better. We as officers, serve one purpose: Lead the enlisted men so they can get the mission accomplished. We provide the administrative support, operational planning, and set the standards, but it’s the enlisted that do the work. They carry out the missions,they worry about the details, they are the ones that take casualties. The officers ought to take every lump they they have coming and then some. Quite frankly, any officer who thinks his place in the military is *anything* other than a privilege that he has been granted to lead the finest men and women in the finest military in the world, that ‘officer’ needs to do some serious thinking about his role in things and his mentality towards military service. We exists to support, lead and care for the troops. The troops will accomplish the mission, ANY mission, if we do that.
Sorry; It’s a bit of a soapbox of mine.
That said, It’s a good thing I’m a reservist; I feel like this attitude would get my genitalia in the proverbial wringer as a lowly O3 if I was AD. I’m far to mouthy and willing to speak up when I think something’s wrong to make it far on active duty these days.
Alberich: the trial testimony is there under the “record of trial” link. Didn’t read it and won’t any time soon, if ever; I don’t have time to wade through 1,000+ pages.
We’ll have to agree to disagree here. Wilkerson was apparently a serial philanderer. The evidence was strong enough to convince a court-martial panel he was guilty and deserved confinement plus dismissal. And the main witness whose testimony Wilkerson claims would have testified against the character of his accuser is today married to his accuser’s ex-husband (see the first clemency link). I think that might have something to do with why the military judge refused to allow her testimony.
In a vacuum, I might persuaded be to believe this might have been a case of “he said/she said/can’t know the truth”. In light of what’s come to light about Wilkerson’s other shady past conduct, um, no. I think the court-martial panel got it right, and Lt Gen Franklin blew it – bigtime – giving the entire military justice system a huge black eye in the process.
The court-martial panel was there, and heard the evidence – to include witness demeanor, physical bearing, tone of voice, etc . . . . The convening authority did not. They were IMO in a better position than the convening authority to evaluate both the evidence and witness credibility. And after doing so, they agreed on both guilt and sentence.
As I said previously: what’s the point in a court-martial convening authority authorizing a court-martial if they’re simply going to ignore results they don’t like?
Ex-PH2: things are no different in the commercial world. If things can be swept under the rug and the guilty guy/gal is seen as an asset, they are and the individual is retained. If not – and when things get into the legal system, they almost always can’t be swept under the rug – then they’re routinely dropped like a hot potato.
It’s usually when things go public (or the threat is made to go public) that a company’s hand is forced. And even then, the proverbial “fair-haired boy” is sometimes still kept (or quietly reinstated after an absence) if he/she has a highly-placed patron with enough juice.
That’s I find what’s so personally galling about this case. If I recall correctly, Lt Gen Franklin could have killed this one with far less publicity by simply rejecting the Article 32 investigation report. Accepting that Article 32 report and convening a GCM meant he accepted the investigation’s findings that there was credible evidence a crime likely had occurred. Holding the court-martial provided the formal process where by the accused’s guilt or innocence would be determined. And, IMO when it didn’t turn out the way Lt Gen Franklin expected, he simply let emotion cloud his good judgement and just decided to ignore the court-martial’s verdict.
That was within his authority. But it was IMO simply a monumentally foolish thing to do.
He had to know that a high-profile court-martial about a tawdry subject would attract serious attention. Yet Franklin still chose to do hold the court-martial anyway – and then chose to reverse the results when he didn’t like them. I personally see that as simply stunningly bad judgement on the part of a GO/FO.
You start the legal process, you’d best be willing to live with the results. If not, it’s IMO far better never to go down that road at all.
Ex-PH2, as one who has been overseas three times, I can say I’ve known lots and plenty of fellow Soldiers that were honest and loyal to their spouses and significant others, and I’ve known a share that “thought with their peckers” like “Blowjob Willie” Clinton , well,… any day!! Trust me the latter ARE the minority, they just get the publicity. The thing that hacks me off about this is that he got off so easy, like I said earlier, an Enlisted man or NCO would have gotten 6 months and a BCD!
Proud Infidel: the military justice system has two quirks regarding officers who get court-martialed. The first is that there are two options for officers: retention or dismissal (equivalent of a DD). They cannot receive a BCD. Officers also can’t be reduced by a courts-martial if convicted; they either get retained at current rank or dismissed. There’s no authority for a court-martial sentence to reduce an officer (commissioned or warrant) in rank.
Dunno why this is the case. It’s not a Senate confirmation issue – Senate confirmation hasn’t been required for officers below the grade of O4 since the mid-1990s (and I’m pretty sure it’s only required for reserve-component officers below O6 since the late 1990s/early 2000s), and I don’t think it was ever required for WOs. It might have to do with the fact that most officer promotions require Presidential approval, and a court-martial reduction could be seen as intruding into this Presidential authority.
In Wikerson’s case, IMO the court-martial panel got it more or less right. After convicting Wilkerson, they sentenced him to dismissal plus a year in confinement. Hell, the SJA who reviewed Wilkerson’s clemency petition actually recommended Lt Gen Franklin cut him what amounts to a major break – that SJA actually recommended commuting the dismissal to an additional 2 years confinement, which would have let the guy retire at the cost of 2 more years in prison. (For the record: I don’t agree with that recommendation either; IMO officers should be held to a higher standard and should NOT be cut such breaks.)
Yet Lt Gen Franklin chose to simply ignore the court-martial results and fully reinstate the guy as if nothing had happened. I find that unjust and repugnant.
I believe that the convening authority made an honest and considered decision to set aside the conviction. Reasonable minds may disagree with his decision, but I think it was an honest one. If he’d simply wanted to give Wilkerson a break, he would have declined to refer the case to a court-martial in the first place, and we wouldn’t be hearing the same cries of outrage that we are now. And, post-trial, he had the benefit of more information than he would have at the pre-trial stage. It also bears mentioning that the military courts of criminal appeals can, and do, set aside court-martial convictions on the basis of factual insufficiency. So yes, the court can substitute its judgment for that of the panel who heard the case, and the convening authority who referred the case and approved the findings. And again, no cries of outrage when this happens. Alberich is right that questionable sex cases are going to trial all the time because of the current environment – the military wants to show the public that they are “doing something”. I hear this from prosecutors as well as defense counsel. A few days ago I heard a prosecutor talking about a sex case that, according to the prosecutor, would have almost certainly resulted in an acquittal, but the accused accepted an administrative discharge because he didn’t want to take the risk, however small, of being convicted. A defense attorney recently told me of a case he’s defending in which he asked the accuser at the Article 32 hearing, point-blank: “did you consent?” Her response: “I don’t know.” Now, if you have a typical swearing contest, and the accuser says she doesn’t know if she consented, how are you going to persuade a panel, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did not? (There is other evidence, including some of the accused’s other testimony, that points in the direction of consent, btw.) Yet, the government is, incredibly, still taking the case to trial. Cases are getting tried that shouldn’t be, in order to appease certain constituencies; and, because of the inherent… Read more »
MrBill: Wilkerson’s past affairs are precisely as relevant as the testimony of the individual Wilkerson’s attorneys raised such as stink about the judge excluding (see the first “clemency” link in the FOIA link Alberich provided above). That excluded testimony would have purportedly undercut Wilkerson’s accuser’s credibility – albeit it was not exactly from an unbiased source (the current spouse of Wilkerson’s accuser’s ex-husband). I personally find both relevant, but one far more persuasive than the other due to source and the possibility for source bias. YMMV.
One can also argue that a substantial issue in a “he said/she said” case is who is more believable – indeed, the testimony of the two individuals involved is often the primary evidence reasonably available. Documented past misconduct on the part of the accused of a similar nature (e.g., sexual philandering by someone who’s basing his defense on the “I’m a committed husband, I wouldn’t do that, so don’t believe my accuser” principle) goes to the heart of credibility.
You are correct in that Lt Gen Franklin could easily have pretty much swept this one “under the rug” by rejecting the Article 32 investigation report and declining to direct empaneling of a court-martial to try the case. He elected to go the other route instead. It looks to me like he simply didn’t like or “couldn’t believe” the results and IMO used terribly poor judgement as a result.
Appeals courts – civilian and military – reverse convictions fairly often for procedural or evidentiary reasons. That’s their proper role. But the more I think about it, the more I’m beginning to seriously question whether general court-martial convening authorities should have that authority. That’s essentially giving the convening authority (generally a GO/FO) de facto pardon authority. I’m now starting to believe that may be a bit too low a level to which to grant the authority to give de facto pardons to those convicted of felony crimes.
Disclaimer to all: I don’t want you guys to think I was painting you all with the same brush. I wasn’t.
However, I saw many senior POs and officers acting like frat boys on a bender, so my perception is occasionally a bit skewed. From the 1970s up to about 10 years ago, the civilian work force atmosphere was more about ‘get things done’ than it was about party time. It isn’t that it didn’t happen. It just wasn’t so public.
Ex-PH2: I don’t really think anything was different between military and civilian sectors between the 1970s and the early 2000 regarding such behaviors. What I think happened is a combination of four things:
(1) demographics (the military is predominantly young folks, who as a group tend to engage in riskier behaviors);
(2) the military has always been more overt about some of the “frat boy” behavior, especially before the mid-1980s;
(3) the military has always been more public in its discipline for such behavior; and
(4) with the advent of Internet journalism (which really didn’t begin in earnest until the early 2000s) and online search capabilities, it’s now WAY harder to keep significant scandals quiet.
I think the last is probably the most significant. Bad behavior that in the past would have been pretty easy to hide (e.g., done far away from home) is now much harder to conceal.
Hondo – you’ve raised a good issue. Should the power of clemency rest with the same convening authority who refers the case to trial? Should there be an exception for sex cases? Or should that authority be at a higher level, across the board? I dunno. It’s been this way for a long time, and in my experience it’s been an infrequently (and usually judiciously) used power. But, it’s certainly a fit subject for discussion. If clemency authority was at least one level up the chain of command, it would be more like an appellate authority, as opposed to the same guy having a second bite at the apple. I’d hate to think that the convening authority really thought anything like “well, I don’t think he did it; but to keep the heat off myself, I’ll let it go to trial. He’ll be acquitted anyway.” That’s a cowardly attitude, if true; he should have had the courage to nip it in the bud then. Why put a man you think is innocent through the ordeal of a trial he doesn’t deserve – especially knowing, as a worldly man must, that there is no such thing as a sure thing when it comes to trials, and there is a chance that the man you think is innocent might be convicted anyway? I believe it’s much more likely that the convening authority, having much more information at his disposal at the clemency stage, and understanding the great difference between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt, made a decision that he honestly thought was right. We’ll have to disagree about the adultery. Certainly the accuser’s credibility is at the heart of the case; without her testimony there is no case. But the credibility of an accused, who doesn’t testify? Not so much. But even if his credibility was at issue, we don’t know enough about the circumstances of the adultery to make an assessment. If a man sneaks around behind his wife’s back, that indicates he’s untrustworthy; but if he has an affair with his wife’s knowledge, it may or may not… Read more »
@Hondo, that’s true. If it weren’t for the internet and social media, 98$ of the stuff that used to lie hidden, or was denied ever happening and got swept under the rug, is now on public display.
Well, maybe something good comes out of these constant dustups over inappropriate behavior. Self-discipline seems to have gone by the wayside, IF you take in only the social media stuff. But on the other hand, bullies and adulterers and predators have always been around. They just weren’t quite so public as they are now.
Mr. Bill: a quick scan of the court transcript appears to indicate that Wilkerson did not testify on his own behalf. However, a number of those who testified on behalf of Wilkerson appear to have made statements indicating their belief in his truthfulness and character. Others appear to have made statements questioning the truthfulness of his accuser. I therefore believe that evidence from other sources indicating Wilkerson was not as truthful as one might believe based on witness testimony would therefore be material and should be considered. An adulterous relationship (by definition, the breaking of a rather important vow, and actionable criminally in the military) resulting in fathering a child would be something I’d definitely consider relevant in such circumstances, particularly since the trial here dealt with what was a potential attempt to engage in another incident of marital infidelity.
That probably doesn’t meet the legal standard for consideration in such cases. But IMO it damn well should. The adulterous relationship years prior had already proven Wilkerson capable of breaking promises and almost certainly also of lying repeatedly while doing so – as well as showing him capable of cheating on his wife.
MrBill: addendum to previous comment. Regarding “trustworthiness”: IMO the circumstances and specific subject at hand matter – a lot. I’ve known any number of people in (pick an occupation) who were absolutely trustworthy within their professional capacity – but who were absolutely untrustworthy outside same and would lie/otherwise behave unethically at the drop of a hat. For example: how many damned good lawyers/pilots/doctors/accountants/(name an occupation) have you known that you’d trust with your life/health/last dollar/whatever in their professional capacity – but who were also such smooth-talking, low-life horndogs that you wouldn’t leave them alone with your wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter at a bar for 5 minutes?
The fact that Wilkerson may have been trustworthy in his professional capacity is true but irrelevant. The alleged misconduct was sexual misconduct. Here, what’s relevant is how trustworthy he regarding keeping Ralph the One-Eyed Trouser Trout where it belonged. Wilkerson’s pact conduct indicates that where sex is concerned, he ain’t exactly a saint and can’t be considered overly trustworthy. I thus argue that information regarding his past extramarital dalliances is highly relevant in a trial of this nature. That’s particularly true if his lawyers are going to call witness testifying to his trustworthiness or honesty, and/or who cast aspersions on the trustworthiness and honesty of his accuser – which they appear to have done.
Should the power of clemency rest with the same convening authority who refers the case to trial? Should there be an exception for sex cases? Or should that authority be at a higher level, across the board? Extremely intelligent questions. This is actually part of a fundamental debate in military justice that has been going on for a long time — what is the fundamental purpose of military justice? The traditional answer is that it’s a commander’s tool to ensure good order and discipline among the troops — that it’s really a formalization of the commander’s authority to discipline his troops. (And a limitation, compared to eras when the commander might just order an individual or a unit put to death without trial.) If that’s the purpose…then the clemency power is central to court-martial, and should always remain with it. There is a similar power with Article 15, incidentally, to suspend, remit, or set aside punishments, though commanders vary in how often they use them. (Note that his clemency power extends not only to setting aside the sentence, but to reducing it. Usually clemency submissions from the defense are requests to reduce the sentence rather than to set it aside completely.) The other extreme is the view that military justice is fundamentally about justice, about law enforcement, about punishing the guilty but affording them the full range of legal protections available in civilian court. Under an extreme version of that view, the less control the commander has over the process, the better…and maybe he should lose both the power to convene a court-martial, in favor of an independent prosecutor’s office, and the power to modify its results, in favor of the President’s power to pardon. Many books and articles have been written on the debate along this spectrum. It’s a fascinating subject. I incline to the first view. That is, I think the whole purpose in having a separate military justice system at all is to give commanders a tool to impose order and discipline, and they should get the full discretion at both ends. But sex cases involving civilians… Read more »
Well, now this is interesting.According to the GCMA order regarding Wilkerson’s court-martial, it was disapproved on 26 Feb 2013 – by order of Lt Gen Franklin. See page 5 of
http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130403-023.pdf
I’m trying to wrap my head around that. CG, 3d AF seems to have been the CGMCA (and thus the authority to approve the results) for Wilkerson’s GCM. But Franklin doesn’t seem to have formally taken command of the 3d AF until close to a month later. His official bio states his assignment as CG 3d AF began on 19 March 2013, and his change-of-command ceremony was 29 March 2013.
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108770/lieutenant-general-craig-a-franklin.aspx
http://www.stripes.com/news/franklin-takes-helm-at-3rd-air-force-1.173114
Something here just doesn’t add up. Maybe someone out there can help explain what happened here?
Disregard – see comments 35-37 below. Eyeglass prescription is getting outdated, I guess.
It doesn’t say “19 March 2013” — the 19 is the line number (1. is his first assignment, 2. is his second assignment, and the 19. is his 19th assignment.) So it just says “March 2013.” I speculate that he actually assumed command at the end of February but did what I do when reporting an assignment that ended 2 or 3 days into a month…rounding off to the nearest month.
err I mean *2012*, not 2013 and if it’s 2012 disregard what I said anyway.
Alberich: point taken – and mea culpa. That’s indeed his 19th assignment vice 19 March. And the year also reads 2012 vice 2013 – in the article as well as the bio.
Guess I goofed there – bigtime. (smile)
Lt Gen Franklin is not CMC Ames. If there is reasonable doubt, an AMERICAN concept in law, then no one should be convicted.
We seem to have forgotten that in an era of different spanks for different ranks, and the joy of seeing an O go down.
Wilkerson’s conviction was required by several women in Congress as the price for the promotions of several generals, and funding. Sucks to be innocent, and punished anyway, but that’s the new American way.
Different spanks for different ranks, also are both ring knockers? Joe
Hondo @31 & 32 – fair points, all. I don’t mean to suggest that adultery can never be a factor in assessing a person’s credibility. Here, though, I just don’t see it as that big a factor. I say that because the convening authority’s rationale was not so much “I believe him because he’s a stellar individual”, although there was some of that; but, it was more “I believe him because his story hangs together better, and is better supported, than the accuser’s”.
Not a clear-cut case either way by any means, but to me there’s plenty of doubt as to Wilkerson’s guilt, even knowing that he was an unfaithful husband (conceding, of course, that I was not at the trial, nor did I read the trail transcript). So, I’m not convinced that any injustice was done by setting aside his conviction. Yeah, if Wilkerson did it, he’s getting off light (although being forced to retire two grades lower than he would have is still enough of a penalty to make it hurt – and hurt permanently). On the other hand, if Wilkerson is innocent (and he may well be), he’s been done an injustice – just less of an injustice than if the convening authority hadn’t acted.
#39 Joe Williams: don’t know if they’re both ring-knockers, and don’t care. The Wilkerson saga has been one of feminist thugs trying to destroy the concept of reasonable doubt. There was enough in the case that the general reversed the conviction, even though the USAF was punished hard for his decision.
Ring-knocker or ringless, Justice must be applied equally, with the benefit of doubt going to the Accused.
IMO, the bottom line to all of this is LtGen Franklin ultimately received some poor guiance from a SJA type somewhere along the line, and was perhaps influenced in such a way to flip his decision.
And folks wonder why those on the Hill want to take sexual offenses off the table for commander’s to adjudicate – because of cases just like (and similiar to) this one.
I worked with and went to church with Gen Franklin while at Aviano. I couldn’t have been more surprised by the set aside of the conviction. He was always a standup guy and looked out for us. My only conclusion is Wilkerson laid it on thick, bad advise or the evidence just wasn’t there.
Good riddance to bad rubbish…