Posted on 12/02/2003 2:06:22 PM PST by Cathryn Crawford
What Happens to Cheating Soldiers?
Capt. James Yee, the Army chaplain accused of sneaking classified materials out of Guantanamo Bay, has been charged with adultery as well. What sort of punishment do soldiers face for cheating on their spouses?
The military penalty remains pretty harsh: up to a year in confinement plus a dishonorable discharge, which entails the forfeiture of all retirement pay. But a soldier's odds of facing such punishment are slim, at least if adultery is all they're charged with. In fact, courts martial on adultery charges alone are almost unheard of; the charge is usually added atop a list of other crimes, like failing to obey orders, lying to a superior, or sexual misconduct. In October, for example, an Air Force enlistee in Colorado pleaded guilty to adultery, along with providing liquor to a minor and engaging in group sex. The man was sentenced to two months of hard labor and a bad conduct discharge. The latter penalty is considered less shameful than a dishonorable discharge, though it usually involves a similar forfeiture of benefits.
Proving adultery under military guidelines is no mean prosecutorial feat. According to Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the prosecution must prove that the accused not only committed the indiscretion, but also that his or her conduct "was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." In other words, the affair must somehow have hampered the military's ability to do its job—say, by lowering morale on a base, or by damaging the public's faith in the armed forces.
In April 2002, President Bush further discouraged adultery prosecutions by issuing an executive order that clarified the circumstances that might necessitate legal action. Although the order maintained that "adultery is clearly unacceptable conduct," it also listed a variety of factors that commanders should take into consideration before proceeding with a court martial. These include the accused's rank, the impact of the affair on the involved parties' job performance, and whether any of the hanky-panky took place while the accused was on the clock.
The legal change was inspired by a 2001 report issued by the National Institute of Military Justice, which argued that the adultery laws were too vague and thus enforced too arbitrarily. The most infamous example in recent years was the brouhaha surrounding Lt. Kelly Flynn, an unmarried Air Force pilot who was discharged in 1997 after lying about an affair with the husband of an enlisted woman. Many women's rights advocates grumbled that Flynn's private life was her own business and that a man in a similar position would have been let off the hook with a wink and a nudge.
Compared to the civilian penalties for adultery, the military punishment is remarkably draconian. In Maryland, for example, the maximum penalty for adultery is a whopping $10 fine. And John Raymond Bushey Jr., a Virginia attorney who recently pleaded guilty to adultery, was fined $125 plus $36 in court costs. He has appealed the decision.
Oh, c'mon. Haven't we progressed enough in the past hundred years or so, such that adultery should no longer be considered a crime?</sarcasm>
(I guess the previous commander-in-chief had immunity.)
In April 2002, President Bush further discouraged adultery prosecutions
{Ping} Apparently, Dubya decided X42 left some unfinished business in this area. At any rate, this bit o' news doesn't seem to bode well for any "sanctity of (gay) marriage" action on his part.
I personally know of at least one high-ranking officer whose was nailed for this. They just don't publish that stuff, which is why some folks may think they get away with it.
While she was pregnant?
Actually, my memory says that enlisted man was somewhere within Lt Flynn's command. Even if my memory is incorrect, the AF still enforced strict anti-fraternization rules that the Army (at that time) did not.
Here's the real issue, though.
You've got a lonely, married GI in Iraq. He hears that his wife is fooling around with someone else back at the home base. It seriously distracts him in the midst of a deadly environment, and could even render him so inattentive that it costs his life. If wife is running around with a civilian, that's one thing. But if it's with a soldier, then the military will do something about it. It ruins good order and morale for that kind of thing to go on. It ruins it not only for the soldier involved but for every young buck who hears about it and begins to suspect the same of his wife. Remember, even in the animal kingdom, the young bucks are extremely jealous of their females.
On the other side of the ledger, you've got a wife at home who hears her man is running around with some other woman in a combat zone. The woman is probably a soldier, too. The wife gets frantic and shares it with other wives who live a miserable existence not trusting anything the rear detachment commander tries to do for them. One or more of them react with "retributive infidelity," that variety that is intended as a "get even" gesture. Soldiers hear about the infidelity, get distracted, and are easier targets for the enemy.
It destroys morale of the soldiers on the line to discover lack of trust and rampant jealousy on the part of their spouse back home.
Former chief of chaplains Patrick Hessians coined a phrase I really liked: "There's a thin line between the home front and the front line." It's absolutely true.
The adultery charge is for very good morale/discipline reasons and should be enforced. Usually it is handled by non-judicial UCMJ, so this article is slightly wrong. It is true that it is seldom brought up as a judicial issue unless tacked on to other charges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.