Army to cleanse ranks of convicted sex offenders
Andy sends us a link to an Army Times article in regards to the Secretary of the Army John McHugh’s decision to toss out convicted sex offenders. You know, that’s fine with me. I’m surprised that they’re still serving. But, it’s not a complete cleansing. It seems some will get to stay. Guess who.
For enlisted soldiers, separation proceedings will start even if after their conviction they were evaluated for retention and allowed to stay. Commissioned and warrant officers will not face separation proceedings if they were already evaluated for retention after their conviction and retained, according to the memo.
Um, I guess four years of college insulates the officer corps from persecution, because basically that’s all that separates them from most of the enlisted people who will be tossed. I would think that the Secretary of the Army, since he’s doing this to show how tough he’s going to be on sex offenders would want to completely remove sex offenders from his Army, the one that we lent to him for a period.
The directive comes ahead of Senate debate this week on the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, to which a group of senators, spearheaded by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., plan to propose an amendment that removes the military chain of command from the decision to prosecute certain crimes, including sex assault.
Well, if McHugh is trying to head off the Act, he’s not doing a very good job, in fact by protecting the officers, he’s only proving Gillibrand’s whole point. If a sex offender is in the ranks of the military, they don’t belong there, whether they’re enlisted or officers. Shit or get off the pot, McHugh.
Category: Big Army
Typical Big Government (fill in the branch, agency or department name). Rules like integrity, honesty, and the like only apply to the rank and file; for the “Senior Leaders,” not so much.
I’m not sure SecArmy has the authority to dismiss officers the same way he has the plenary authority to separate Enlisted Soldiers. I think it’s a statutory thing. If the officer had his board for the misconduct and they did not recommend separation, I’m not sure the secretary can do anything about that after the fact. Not the same statute for enlisted folks. So, we would need a law change to boot the officers rather than a SecArmy directive. I don’t know…I’m rusty on this. Maybe one of the Lawyers can weigh in.
Jonn, couldn’t agree more.
So, let me get this straight. If, 22 years ago, a civilian was convicted of statutory rape with a consenting 18 year-old when he was, say, 21, he’s out? I know what you are thinking. No, they are talking about rape and other nasty forms of sexual assault. Well, if that’s true, let me know. I don’t see it anywhere.
That second line in cmt 4 omitted a vital piece of info–that the 21-year-old civilian later enlisted.
My point is that convicted sex offenders is not the same as saying ‘persons convicted of sexual assault.’ The statutory rape laws differ from state to state and, then, of course, there is the federal law. And what about a conviction for sodomy that dates to before that crime, like adultery, ceased being enforced? Who is going to make these determinations when it appears to be a blanket edict for EMs?
I can see this for 99% of them but what about the kid who just got caught with his girlfriend when she was 17 and he was 18 so he got the tag — hasn’t been or hand any problems since — are they going to throw him out too?
Simple Valerie, just tell the kid to become a Commissioned Officer, he’ll make 4-star.
Regardless of the rules of authority, things like this continue to cause issue between officer and enlisted. Especially when officers are “forgiven” for things that an enlisted man would go be PCS’d to Leavenworth for to the tune of 10-20 years.
Commissioned Officers are supposed to have a higher standard, if anything they should be punished more harshly for violations.
But what do I know, I’m just a dumb Sergeant.
And it makes even less sense when you consider how many enlisted have degrees themselves.
Frankly, you’d think an “officer and a gentleman” would be held to a higher standard.
Then again, the shit we enlisted, but not the officers, had to deal with after Tailhook 20 years ago pretty much gave the lie to that bullshit.
Of course, I guess it would be too much to ask the officer to do the honorable thing and resign their commission. Probably too much since their actions already proved they have no honor.
Butt boinkers.
The officer/enlisted split on this is plain stupid. When I was in if you committed and were convicted of sexual assault, as in rape you were done anyway. Rapists and sexual predators don’t belong in the military anyway.
My concern is that the headhunters will go after those who were given administrative entries or art 15s due to shaky claims simply because the command thought they needed to do something.
Who defines “convicted sex offenders”? Are we talking those that sexually assaulted someone, or some dumbass who got caught banging a married chick on base. Is there anything in the works about discharging the chick who slept her way through the barracks, getting caught in males rooms three tomes a month?
I’m all for harsher punishment for the officers. I feel like it’s be better for everyone involved if the officers got rammed when they screwed up. The Romans used to execute officers who failed in battle; I’m not necessarily advocating that (yet), but whatever the enlisted penalty is, it needs to be at least double for an officer. (For the record, I AM an officer, and I’ve always felt this way). You want the brass, and the privileges that go with it? Be prepared to take your lumps.
And MustangCryppie, The days of asking people to do things out of honor are long gone in society at large. We in the Armed Forces still believe it it, but it’s a dying concept; It should come as no surprise that there are people that don’t consider it as an integral part of their life as soldiers anymore. In my mind, honor, or the lack thereof, is what defines soldiers. Always has, always will.
I’ve heard of guys getting the registered sex offender label after getting arrested for draining the lizard in an alley at 0300. Guess they’re not fit to wear the uniform either.
Can’t wait for guys to start getting the boot at 18 years TIS for that DUI they got as a PFC.
The feminazi’s score another feather in the cap or is it notch in the pistol grip? This sounds like DC, law for thee but not me…
And I don’t want my previous post to sound like I’m defending sex offenders. Sexual assaulters have no place in the military and rapists and kiddie diddlers (not guys who banged their 17 y/o girlfriends when they were 19) should be shot, military or not. But not every “sex offender” necessarily deserves the title.
And whats with the 26K “estimated” crap when they list 3192 for 2011? Thats one hell of a points spread there, isn’t it?
I’m not defending anybody, just pointing one or two things out.
#9 – Couldn’t agree more. I was on my last year in the Navy when that particular fecal matter hit the oscillating air movement device. We had more meeting, training and counseling about sexual harassment than I think most sex offenders ever see, but the officers, not so much.
Again “sexual offender” does not equal violent criminal. I remember hearing of a case in Georgia where a (minor) boy got his (minor) girlfriend pregnant and the girl got kicked out by her mom. The boy’s mom took her in (because she is a decent human being) and the boy and her continued to have sex (I seem to recall that they eventually got married), which got the mom convicted of “facilitating sexual activity by minors” (or some equally ridiculous nonsense) and now she is a registered sexual offender.
I couldn’t help but think of the line from “Animal Farm”, “Two legs bad (enlisted), four legs good (orificers)”. Don’t know why, just did.
Sooooo sick of double standards, wherever they are applied.
Why are they making this more difficult than it need be? Either an action is illegal or it is not. Period. Doesn’t matter who commits it or who the victim of a crime might be.
So what if there are different ways of adjudicating officers vice enlisted? Just do it. Charge anyone who commits a crime.
I guess the Officers corps is no longer full of gentlemen. Who knew?
@18 Streetsweeper,
I’m concerned about these numbers, as well. I think that there is a push by a political party to alarm readers. Quite frankly, not only is it easy to claim sexual assault, you don’t even have to name an accuser. I wonder if many of these statistics are from VA claims. The VA isn’t going to initiate an investigation from something that occurred while in the service so an accuser can claim the nebulous ‘sexual assault’ and viola, they get money. It might have something to do with the alarming rise in sexual assaults on males.
I agree that the situation should be the same whether the individual is officer or enlisted. However, in this case it appears that the SA’s hands are tied by existing Army regs when it comes to officer personnel.
Para 4-4, AR 600-8-24, appears to ban the involuntary discharge of an officer who has (1) already been formally considered for involuntary discharge by a board of officers, and (2) been found to be suitable for continued retention by that board, unless new evidence is available that was not considered by the previous board or which shows additional evidence of misconduct/inefficiency/unsuitability for service. Imposing a discharge by SA order for officer personnel that have already been considered for elimination and approved for continued service thus probably wouldn’t pass legal muster.
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_24.pdf
Changing the reg would likely only affect those convicted on/after the date of the new reg and/or who were considered for retention by a board after the change. Those with existing convictions who had already been approved for continued service would probably be “grandfathered”. (Such info would, however, be a part of their OMPF and would almost certainly rather adversely affect their future career prospects. If they’re not close to sanctuary or retirement eligible, I’d guess they can probably kiss retirement goodbye.)
I’d guess this is precisely why the SA’s directive read the way that it did, and why the blanket discharge order was enlisted only.
I don’t think the enlisted personnel regs have a similar prohibition. (I haven’t had a chance to review them yet, so I could be wrong.) If they don’t, the I’d guess that the SA indeed has the authority to order a blanket discharge of enlisted sex offenders.
I agree with you Hondo. ALthough I suspect, as Glass Joe said, that it’s a statuatory rule, and not just a regulation. Similar to how an enlisted can lose rank as a punishment, but an officer can’t, unless he’s busted down to private with forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
I also believe, from what I’ve seen in the past, that there are probably very few, if any, officers on active duty who were retained after being convicted. I know the two captains I relieved in Iraq for banging their subordinates (and who also received relief for cause evaluations and GO Article 15s) went before a show-cause board as soon as they hit the runway at home station, and both were separated with general discharges.
I can’t imagine that anyone convicted of a sex crime would fare any better. So if you’re only talking a handful of people, all of whom will be separated at the expected time of their next promotion because of failure to be selected, is it worth changing the law for, or just waiting them out for a couple of years–again, IF they survive a show-cause board. And in my experience, I can’t think of any officer I knew who went before a show-cause board who survived the experience.
Don: you could be right; the reg prohibiting the SA from separating officers considered for retention could well be based on Federal statute. I haven’t had time to research that either. (smile)
In either case, I fully agree. USAHRC now runs most board for dual purpose – both selection and ID for show cause. Any officer with a history that includes (1) a documented sex offense, and (2) the fact that he/she has been considered for elimination on the basis of that offense but was retained instead IMO almost certainly has a rather short career expectation if retained.
This is one of those tempests in a teapot. My understanding is that it only applies to those convicted of sexual assault at a court-martial. The vast vast vast majority of soldiers convicted of sexual assault are discharged, and those not can be separated after their conviction. For those not kicked out, there was probably a good reason why both the court-martial and then their commanders decided not to kick them out.
I would be shocked if this applies to 50 soldiers in the entire 500,000+ soldier Army.
But how many staff-hours were wasted on this political hot potato.
@14: Beautifully said. Just sayin’.
TTC: you may be correct, and I hope you are. But I want to see the exact language of both the SA’s guidance and the Army’s implementing directives for myself before I’ll agree you’re correct. The precise language in those documents will be what determines whether this is a well-needed purge, or has the potential to become hugely abused.
One thing I’ve learned over the years is that if something can be abused – you can bet it eventually will be.