Some problems with this story. Article 15 refers to non-judicial punishment itself, in lieu of a Court Martial, to which the person to be punished must agree.
The investigation is under Article 32. That is concluded before an Article 15 is imposed, or a Court Martial is recommended to the convening authority, or the matter dismissed.
As to the matter of the alleged assault, “assault” is not the unwanted physical contact. Assault is the threat of an unwanted physical contact. “Battery” is the unwanted physical contact.
Simply put, Assault is words, Battery is hands, feet, etc, in a contact with a person who did not want the contact.
Also, Battery generally requires intent to batter, intent to cause physical harm, pain, etc. It generally requires “criminal intent.” That would not have occurred in the case as stated.
The colonel’s problem may be that he accepted Article 15 punishment (unwisely) but now wants the record of it removed.
Regardless of the righteousness of his cause, he will have a tough uphill legal battle. In a way, it’s like trying to withdraw a plea-bargained reduced sentence after the case is over.
I wish him luck, but it’s a tough legal battle.
You got it.
Once he accepted the Article 15 he was stuck with it. He could have turned it down and dared the Army to court-martial him - which would have carried with it a far riskier outcome (conviction, dismissal with resulting loss of his retirement, jail, etc). There is also a chance that the convening authority would have ‘blinked’ and not pursued a court-martial.
But he decided against rolling the dice after consulting counsel (probably wisely) and now he is stuck with the fact that it ended his career. No LTC can survive such a public Article 15 as this. Its the automatic kiss of death to a career.
From the facts, it doesn’t seem to me that he did anything wrong. He correctly intervened to get two in-uniform officers to stop violating regulations in public.
If anything the G-D soldiers who were trying to videotape this drunken makeout session should have been disciplined because material such as this is so demonstrably damaging to the Army image and good order and discipline.
“The investigation is under Article 32. That is concluded before an Article 15 is imposed, or a Court Martial is recommended to the convening authority, or the matter dismissed.”
What was the outcome of the Article 32? Do we know?
If the GCMCA was determined to hang this officer if he refused Article 15, then Article 134 UCMJ (conduct prejudicial) would have been thrown at him, never mind the conduct of the two lezzie officers.
I thought Obama was no longer in office. My bad.