Posted on 08/10/2005 12:36:55 AM PDT by leadpenny
The Army has taken the extraordinary step of relieving a four-star general, with military sources citing sexual misconduct as the reason.
An official announcement yesterday did not specify why Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, 52, was removed from his command of all soldier training and doctrine development, but two retired Army officers said it was for having an extramarital affair.
Adultery is illegal in the military, constituting conduct unbecoming an officer. The sources said they think the woman was not a subordinate of Gen. Byrnes at U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Va.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Adultery is always serious, but you wonder if something happens during a war, if the guy or gal would be tossed out.
The UCMJ is tailored to, in many ways, allow commanders at all echelons to effect a command climate as they see fit. Some commanders at higher echelons will reserve adjudication of certain offenses to themselves, and during my years I saw adultery treated in very different ways. I actually knew of one commander who imposed an Article 15 with the absolute minimum punishment (suspended at that), remarking that it was an offense and the evidence led him to believe that it had been commited, and as such he was duty bound to impose punishment, but other than that he saw the offense as silly. I knew other commanders who viewed it as an egregious offense....
However, in a very quiet move, in 2002, President Bush adopted many of the changes that were proposed by President Clinton. In addition to the Elements of Proof," the "Explaination" section under this offense now requires commanders to consider the following factors when determining whether or not the offense of "adultery" constitutes a crime:
The accused's marital status, military rank, grade, or position;
The co-actor's marital status, military rank, grade, and position, or relationship to the armed forces;
The military status of the accused's spouse or the spouse of co-actor, or their relationship to the armed forces;
The impact, if any, of the adulterous relationship on the ability of the accused, the co-actor, or the spouse of either to perform their duties in support of the armed forces;
The misuse, if any, of government time and resources to facilitate the commission of the conduct;
Whether the conduct persisted despite counseling or orders to desist; the flagrancy of the conduct, such as whether any notoriety ensued; and whether the adulterous act was accompanied by other violations of the UCMJ;
Whether the accused or co-actor was legally separated; and
Whether the adulterous misconduct involves an ongoing or recent relationship or is remote in time.
The negative impact of the conduct on the units or organizations of the accused, the co-actor or the spouse of either of them, such as a detrimental effect on unit or organization morale, teamwork, and efficiency;
What this means is that many incidents of "adultery" may not be considered a punishable "crime" in the military, unless there is some kind of direct negative impact on the military itself.
This does not mean, however, that military members are free to shack up with whomever they please. Commanders have a lot of discretion when it comes to administrative procedures, and administrative actions (such as reprimands, denial of promotions, performance report remarks, etc.) are not governed by the relatively strict legal requirements of the UCMJ or MCM.
I completely missed your post this morning with the added personal info. Such a shame, hope everyone involved is able to get on with their lives.....sometimes that's easier said than done.
Thanks for amending, clarifying and elaborating on my atrophied recollections. It seems like forever since I've even thought about the UCMJ, much less picked up my battered copy of the MCM. I actually have a 1926 printing of THE ARTICLES OF WAR, which I more frequently peruse for no other reason than the historical and entertainment value (I just bought a pair of brown shoes the other day!).
Me resignation was effective on 31 DEC 00, so your more current info was probably a better answer for McGavin. If I recall correctly, adultery had been eliminated from MPI / CID purview well before the Clinton administration, (or my commission, for that matter) but I don't recall a specific date. I do remember, and can visualize the reg (AR 190-30), which I had to frequently cite when spouses would show up at the MP station to report it and I would refer them to the chain of command and/or IG.
The 2002 info is interesting; it sounds like a lot of the de facto manner in which this was routinely handled has been codified. I (having commanded at the company level) can certainly identify with the disruption something like this may cause within a unit, and I also object to adultery on moral grounds. Although I never had to administer non-judicial punishment (for adultery) as a commander, I was present for a few Article 15s administered to my soldiers and NCOs while serving as a platoon leader. I always saw any consideration in this regard as a fine line between a simple UCMJ enforcement action and a commander's most tempting opportunity to stamp their personal morality onto their unit and their soldier's record. Because a lot of this was disposed of at the company level (unless it involved a senior NCO or officer), my observation was that this was one of the most inequitably punished violations of the UCMJ.
Thanks again for the additional info and insight!
Yep, even before Monica.....
4 Star General Ping
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11587
A blog with some insightful comments.
Thanks Joe. If it's left to the discretion of their immediate commander, it's bound to be fair.
This guy will be on some board within six months. He will have enough buddies out there who get him a decent board job...maybe not the $250k per year deal...but he will at least get a $100k board job, and start to work other deals within twelve months. By 2008, you will find him back in the fortune 500 group and working various deals...and probably still dating other guys wives.
In other words: "What goes TDY, stays TDY."
Had a 1-star as my brigade commander when I was in Germany who had a Spec5 as a secretary. The young lady was "one hot number", if you catch my drift. When He was transferred to the Pentagon, she went with him.
Yes, the guy was married. Yes, he was an older man.
Yes, everyone suspected the sectretary was doing more than taking notes.
Sorry...that's 'secretary'.
Shoulda used spell check....
Our choirmaster at St. Phillips Cathedral in Atlanta forsook a wife and four children to run off with a member of the choir (aided and abetted by a number of other choir members, as it turned out) -- he was mid-forties, she in her 20s. He was instantly fired (the same day he was caught) and had to move to Houston to get away from the noteriety.
The president of my university forsook a wife and children to run off with a drama student. They still live together in Washington DC.
The list goes on of men who reach their forties and suddenly their pants can't stay zipped and the wives and children are left to try to hold up their heads in a public community that knows exactly what happened and never stop talking about it.
But the man's got his sex romp and his hottie, and that's really all that matters, isn't it? Do you wonder why the church is being torn apart by men demanding all sex all the time? Because they're all in their 40s and 50s now and we've taught them that this is what real men do.
Oh, doubtless she did; but I know her motivation: ride the coat tails of a man with money and power. And if she's like a lot of the bimbettes I've met who do this, she imagines "he loves me". Tell her that a man who screws around on his wife will do the same to her, and her eyes glaze over.
Under Clinton, he'd probably have gotten a medal and become CoS of the Army, or Chairman Joint Chiefs.
That's all well and good, but, who would it be that removes a four star that quickly?
Ok, I have read all the comments and this still doesn't make a lot of sence. How about a little insight.
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.