Soldier Blog Post

Can vs. Should -- Decision-making with Soldiers in Mind

September 2, 2010

One of the reasons I love being part of the Army's Trial Defense Service (TDS) is the opportunity to make a direct impact on Soldiers' lives at some of their lowest, toughest times.  I like to think that the compassion that I and my attorneys have for them is shared by their commanders and the military justice system at large.  The last few weeks, however, my faith in the inherent fairness of "the system" and the reasonsed discretion of commanders has been shaken.

While the most visibile mission of TDS is providing criminal defense attorneys for Soldiers facing courts-martial, a good part of any week is spent counseling Soldiers facing non-judicial punishment (Article 15) and administrative separation.  A quick review of what these actually involve is probably a good idea for my next post -- hopefully in the very near future -- but it should suffice for today's discussion to know that both of these actions are done primarily under the authority of Army regulations and do not subject Soldiers to the threat of criminal convictions.  They can, however, have lasting impacts on a Soldier's future, both in and out of uniform.

Over the last few weeks, I've seen a significant number of administrative actions that seem to defy common sense and seem aimed solely at taking extra action to impose unreasonable punishment.  This came to a head for me this week when I counseled two Soldiers, from different units, both facing administrative separation with just 6 weeks left until their service contract was up.  In both cases, the Soldiers had accrued enough leave that, if they were allowed to take it, could have been effectively out of their respective units within 2 weeks.  The units were seeking to strip the Soldiers of their Honorable discharges on the eve of their departure.  Both Soldiers were young; neither had a regulatory right to recourse.  Both Soldiers already planned to leave the Army.  And both had served in combat.

I was shocked that a commander could think so little of a Soldier that - apart from any other deserved action - they would strip away an honorable discharge, and with it the GI Bill these Soldiers had earned.  I've gone out of my way this week to try to help these two Soldiers.  As I mentioned, neither has a formal right to be heard, but I've tried to influence the decision-makers to be reasonable, be compassionate.  I don't know what will happen, but I hope it goes well.

     Previous Post

So, What Should We Talk About Now?
July 8, 2010

Next Post     

TDS 101 – Basic Administrative Actions
September 7, 2010

  • 19 Comments
  • Add Favorite
    You must be logged in to use this feature.

Comments

  • Todd

    Sep 2, 2010 1:36 PM

    Soldiers like you are why I am applying to the JAG Corps Nov 1. Keep up the good work and POST MORE OFTEN. We are out here reading.


    Reply

    • Benjamin Grimes

      Sep 2, 2010 1:48 PM

      Todd,

      I very much appreciate your comment! I certainly recognize I've been slacking, but I WILL be writing more.

      Thanks for reading,

      MAJ G


      Reply

  • David

    Sep 2, 2010 7:24 PM

    Although I believe at a fundamental level that the military justice system is a lot more equitable than its civilian counterpart, I find that where the Chain of Command strays away from a strict application of the regulations, the system becomes a lot less fair. For example, on a few occasions, I have found that the requirement of a rehabilitative transfer seems to be waived a lot more than what would be strictly necessary.


    Reply

    • Benjamin Grimes

      Sep 7, 2010 11:51 PM

      David,

      I agree that there is always a risk involved in individual discretion. But that discretion is one of the things we trust commanders at all levels to exercise. Just as we trust them to make decisions that might impact the very life of their Soldiers, we trust them to make judgments in administrative matters as well. Your example of rehabilitative transfers (moving a Soldier to a new unit to give him/her a fresh start) is a very good one – perhaps the under-used tool to ‘bring Soldiers back into the fold.’ Unfortunately, convenience sometimes wins the day. And the rules allow this; where the impact to Soldiers is relatively minimal, this considerable latitude exists. I simply expect commanders keep Soldier welfare in mind as their balancing mission-related requirements, administrative burdens, and allocations of time. While I don’t always agree with choices commanders make, I’m generally pretty happy with the systemic exercise of discretion in the Army. The significant majority of our Army leaders are worthy of our trust, which makes it all the more painful when we see decisions that leave Soldiers out in the cold.


      Reply

  • Matt

    Sep 2, 2010 8:22 PM

    What type of admin separation are they facing? How is their unit attempting to remove their honorable discharge? I'm just looking for more specific details if you could provide them.


    Reply

    • Benjamin Grimes

      Sep 7, 2010 11:59 PM

      Matt, see my next entry for a brief description of the basics of admin separations. In a nutshell, these Soldiers were both facing separation for patterns of misconduct (Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b). For one the "pattern" was calling a fellow Soldier a bad name (sorry, this is a family blog) and then failing to pass a PT test. For the other, the "pattern" was getting into a fight in 2008 and again earlier this year. Both Soldiers were facing a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge.


      Reply

      • kyle

        Sep 17, 2010 11:46 AM

        Major Grimes,

        Enjoy your blog. Failing to pass a PT test is not an act of misconduct, hence no pattern. I would make an appointment to see the Brigade Commander, then the SJA, if he or she is not a Government hack.

        I know what these Soldiers are going through. When I had the audacity to ETS, so I could attend college, then law school, I was subjected to numerous urinalysis tests, as if they were looking for a way to kick me out with a General, so I coulldn't get the college fund and have no other choice but to stay in. Keep up the good fight, Major Grimes!

        Kyle Fischer, Esq.

        Former TDS Counsel


        Reply

        • Benjamin Grimes

          Sep 17, 2010 8:56 PM

          Kyle, I completely agree that the idea of "misconduct" does not encompass PT or weight loss failures. That was part of my argument to the unit's trial counsel. (By the way, his position was that this completely legitimate!) But I'm happy to report that the trial counsel told me this week that this Soldier is going to get to ETS - the unit has dropped the chapter paperwork. Unfortunately, I don't think the other unit is going to be as reasonable.


          Reply

  • Jenn King

    Sep 7, 2010 10:55 PM

    I agree with Todd! I showed my LTC your previous blog postings, and he was impressed, especially with the one on Leadership. So yes, we are out here reading... and enjoying!


    Reply

    • Benjamin Grimes

      Sep 7, 2010 11:51 PM

      Many thanks, Jenn! I'm back and hope to be back at it for some time to come.


      Reply

  • Brant Weaver

    Nov 9, 2010 5:20 PM

    I am currently being chapetered out for patters of misconduct involving 2 incidences involving alcohol and fights in the past 6 months this past month I have not drank and self enrolled in asap in an effort to stay in the army saying that this all happened because I had a drinking problem and I am deffinently sincere but my entire chain of command left for afghanistan and Im stuck on rear detatchment and feel like there is nobody here to stick up for me how much of a chance could I possibly have just defending myself with the notion that these problems occured because of my bad habit and will not happen again because I do not drink anymore who should I talk to on my post or anywhere where I can get some support because I do want to stay in and honestly feel like they are running me through not caring about wha tim trying to do for myself just sighn the papers and boot me out I dont know i just feel kind of lost and wonder if anyone reading here could give me some advise.


    Reply

  • Jean-Baptiste, Daniel

    Mar 1, 2011 9:54 AM

    Abuse of discretion is an everyday occurrence in today's Army. Just a little about myself - recent graduate from law school (2009) - and since i didn't get into the JAG program after graduation, and knowing this is the life for me, I enlisted into the JAG Corps as an outward expression of my desire to serve my country and in particular, to become an asset in the JAG Corps. Since I have been in, I have witnessed too many discretionary abuses. Since I am currently an E4, I have even had E5s threaten my livelihood through unethical means. Given my maturity and education, coupled with substantial business experience I have been able to maneuver through with relative composure - but I am nothing but deeply compassionate for the lot of some of our service members exposed to the unsavory and unprofessional conduct of those with governmental power to destroy.

    What can be done about this will be and has been a constant point of meditation in my psyche.


    Reply

  • kyle fischer

    Mar 1, 2011 10:48 AM

    Daniel,

    Be careful with your posts. Some trial counsel will jump to conclusions that you are not merely venting, twist your words, and use them against you.

    I think the perfect job is waiting for you at TDS. I am a civilian attorney who is not bound by TDS's rules of asking permission to file certain motions and I have the guts to file the tough ones. If you know of a Soldier who needs someone to fight for them (and they have the means), you can always recommend that they go to a civilian who focuses on military law.

    I find that the newly waged war on sexual assault has actually been an assault on male Soldier's right to due process. The military, as well as society, has been chipping away and chipping away. At some point, the sexual grievance industry will achieve their goal, to wit: a system that requires a man accused of sexual assault to be taken out back and shot without a trial.

    Keep up the good fight, but remember that if you choose to point fingers, you will paint a big target on your back. So, keep yourself spotless for that day. If you have skeletons in the closet, then just tread water until your enlistment is up and get out from under the UCMJ.

    Kyle S. Fischer


    Reply

    • Benjamin Grimes

      Mar 1, 2011 1:10 PM

      Kyle,

      Thanks for your support and thanks for your continued support of the Soldiers I love to serve! As a TDS attorney, I take my obligations to my clients very seriously and I just had to correct your comment about TDS attorneys requiring "permission to file certain motions." As you know, that is not the case! Not only is our job to zealously defend America's Soldiers at courts-martial, we are ethically bound by our profession to make every effort to ensure our clients' rights are protected. There is no requirement for "permission" before I or my counsel file a motion we think is necessary in any case. (I can tell you that I've filed a number of unlawful command influence motions, motions for dismissal of charges and suppression of evidence/statements, and in one case filed a motion to compel the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as a witness!) I think civilian attorneys can be a comfort to some clients, but I am confident that Soldiers will be well-represented by the TDS attorneys available to them.

      Thanks for the continued comments!

      MAJ G


      Reply

    • Jean-Baptiste, Daniel

      Mar 1, 2011 3:27 PM

      Kyle,

      You are absolutely right. Having re-read my post it may be read the wrong way. I just wanted to express my eager anticipation to do my part in defending our soldiers who place their life on the line defending their country in addition to my unexpected realization of how little protection junior enlisted soldiers have vis a vis commissioned and non-commissioned personnel. I am very new to military culture, and I am not saying I regret enlisting by any means, but I am surprised...and the military journey so far has been an extremely fabulous learning experience. And you are right Kyle, I know TDS will be a place where I can florish by defending those whom I have grown to love. Thanks again.


      Reply

  • Kyle

    Mar 1, 2011 2:17 PM

    MAJ G,

    Good to hear. Sounds like you are one of the many outstanding attorneys TDS has.

    I remember back in '07, some sort of guidance came down that we had to inform our RDC before filing a motion alleging UCI. Hopefully, that has changed. Upon further pontification, my use of the term 'permission' is probably inaccurate in that regard. We merely had to notify them that such a motion was coming out. Thanks for keeping me in check.

    Was your motion successful? I've got one filed requesting Secretary Gates presence for UCI on a sexual assault case.


    Reply

    • Benjamin Grimes

      Mar 2, 2011 2:06 PM

      Kyle,

      My motion to get the CJCOS was not successful - the judge didn't agree that he was necessary. Good luck in your attempt to get Secretary Gates!


      Reply

  • Bob Matthews

    Mar 21, 2012 4:17 PM

    MAJ G,

    Just curious, what latitude does the command have in posting a soldier's administrative separation paperwork? I've seen a command (identity withheld) that posted not only various pieces of Chapter 14s (usually the signed sep authority letter but a few times the "justification for separation") but also Chapter 15s and Conscientious Objector paperwork. Is this permitted under the regs as it is for the DA Form 2627?


    Reply

    • Benjamin Grimes

      Mar 21, 2012 5:26 PM

      Bob,

      Great question, and I'll be honest, I'm going to have to do a little homework to answer it fully. Here, however, is my gut reaction: The command should not be posting records relating to administrative separations. Article 15 (non-judicial punishment) results are routinely posted by commanders and First Sergeants, but I think these are different. Unlike Article 15s, administrative separations are not punitive actions and as such are not related to the maintenance of good order and discipline; therefore, I think the argument that these are necessary to keep others in line (or similar arguments) fail. Administrative personnel records, like separation actions, are more pure personnel actions and I think there is an argument they are more akin to finance or enlistment records. I believe this is especially true for Chapter 15s (discharges for homosexuality, which should be non-existant anymore) and Conscientious Objector records; these represent purely personal and extremely private facets of a Soldier's life.

      But, I have to admit, I don't have a definitive answer. I'll find some time to do some homework and will write again.

      MAJG


      Reply

Add Comment


All fields required

Your IP: 38.107.179.209