If this were a Canadian soldier reacting in that manner about our PM (which is not identical, because the PM is not the Commander in Chief of the CF) it would present the basis for a Code of Service Discipline (CSD) charge. It contravenes article 19.36 of the QR&O and would, in this context, amount to an offence under section 129 of the National Defence Act. Even putting aside the issue of public comment, the manner in which she presented herself could still rise to conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline. Whether or not she is an officer is irrelevant to whether a charge was warranted.
If she were charged under the CSD, and I were her CO, and this was brought before me, I would conclude that proceeding with a summary trial (or a court martial, if she so elected) would be in the public interest.
Let's assume that she chose to proceed with a summary trial. Based upon what I have seen, I would likely find her guilty. (There are undoubtedly factors that have not been presented - as with all videos of this nature, they DO NOT present all the relevant facts). But, more importantly, I would sit down with that solder afterward, with her company commander and platoon commander, and ask her what she was thinking. (Or, let her company commander do so - we have to trust our subordinates to do their jobs - but I'd really want to speak to her about her reaction. I would be worried about whether other stressors were adversely affecting her). Discipline without comprehensive understanding by the person punished does not instil a habit of obedience or a respect for why we have a distinct disciplinary regime.
It must also be a teaching opportunity, and not just for this particular soldier. There may well be broader issues that are best dealt with, reasonably, under regimes and processes apart from the CSD (or UCMJ for Americans).
Frankly, I am more concerned about how that soldier reacts to stressful situations. This incident may indicate a deeper concern about the soldier's ability to perform her functions (again, a lot more information is required).
The Commanding Officer should order an investigation. After the investigation, barring discovery of exculpatory evidence, the Commanding Officer should formally notify the Petty Officer Second Class of administrative separation proceedings for “commission of a serious offense.” “Service members may be separated based on commission of a serious military […] offense when the offense would warrant a punitive discharge, per [the Uniform Code of Military Justice] appendix 12 […].” Violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice warrants a punitive discharge and DOD Directive 1344.10 (Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces) is "a lawful general regulation.”
In his Nomination Hearing Statement, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, retired General and former Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis noted that “Civilian control of the military is a fundamental tenet of the American military tradition.”
The "rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (e.g., Article 88 (Contempt Toward Officials), Article 134 (Disloyal Statements), Article 94 (sedition), et al.) and General Regulations (e.g., Department of Defense Directive(s) (DoDD)), reinforce this fundamental tenet.
Delineating between acceptable and unacceptable political activities by members of the Armed Forces is an extension of reinforcing "civilian control of the military." DoDD 1344.10 (Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces), establishes the Department of Defense policy on political activities of members of the Armed Forces.
The Directive is rife with prohibitions on service-members participating in partisan political events while in uniform.
Despite the long list of do's and don'ts, the Directive also includes a catch-all provision, which states, "Activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of this Directive. Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense […] or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided.”
Finally, Enclosure 3 of the Directive states, "Members of the Armed Forces on active duty engaging in permissible political activities shall avoid any outside activities that may be prejudicial to the performance of military duties or likely to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.”
According to video footage, Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Launch/Recovery) 2nd Class (ABE2) Sarah J. Dudrey “gets out of a vehicle,” wearing the Navy Working Uniform (Type III), and approaches a group of citizens engaged in a “pro-America rally.” ABE2 Dudrey proceeds to “yell and get in the face of one […]” rally attendees. ABE2 Dudrey then screams, “Fuck Trump!” and “Fuck you!” at the crowd. ABE2 Dudrey also “deploys the double middle fingers at the crowd several times throughout the encounter.”
ABE2 Dudrey is wearing a uniform in violation of DoDD 1344.10, her actions are contrary to the spirit and intention of [the] directive, and even if participation in the event was permissible, her actions bring discredit on the Armed Forces.
Like Sergeant Gary Stein (Marine Corps Sergeant separated with Other Than Honorable discharge in 2012 for use of contemptuous language toward President Obama), ABE2 Dudrey’s conduct is “a significant departure from the conduct expected of a [Sailor] and [Petty Officer]." The Commanding Officer should notify the Petty Officer of Administrative Separation Proceedings and his/her intent to recommend a service characterization of “Other Than Honorable.”
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).
Gene:
ReplyDeleteIf this were a Canadian soldier reacting in that manner about our PM (which is not identical, because the PM is not the Commander in Chief of the CF) it would present the basis for a Code of Service Discipline (CSD) charge. It contravenes article 19.36 of the QR&O and would, in this context, amount to an offence under section 129 of the National Defence Act. Even putting aside the issue of public comment, the manner in which she presented herself could still rise to conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline. Whether or not she is an officer is irrelevant to whether a charge was warranted.
If she were charged under the CSD, and I were her CO, and this was brought before me, I would conclude that proceeding with a summary trial (or a court martial, if she so elected) would be in the public interest.
Let's assume that she chose to proceed with a summary trial. Based upon what I have seen, I would likely find her guilty. (There are undoubtedly factors that have not been presented - as with all videos of this nature, they DO NOT present all the relevant facts). But, more importantly, I would sit down with that solder afterward, with her company commander and platoon commander, and ask her what she was thinking. (Or, let her company commander do so - we have to trust our subordinates to do their jobs - but I'd really want to speak to her about her reaction. I would be worried about whether other stressors were adversely affecting her). Discipline without comprehensive understanding by the person punished does not instil a habit of obedience or a respect for why we have a distinct disciplinary regime.
It must also be a teaching opportunity, and not just for this particular soldier. There may well be broader issues that are best dealt with, reasonably, under regimes and processes apart from the CSD (or UCMJ for Americans).
Frankly, I am more concerned about how that soldier reacts to stressful situations. This incident may indicate a deeper concern about the soldier's ability to perform her functions (again, a lot more information is required).
The Commanding Officer should order an investigation. After the investigation, barring discovery of exculpatory evidence, the Commanding Officer should formally notify the Petty Officer Second Class of administrative separation proceedings for “commission of a serious offense.” “Service members may be separated based on commission of a serious military […] offense when the offense would warrant a punitive discharge, per [the Uniform Code of Military Justice] appendix 12 […].” Violation of Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice warrants a punitive discharge and DOD Directive 1344.10 (Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces) is "a lawful general regulation.”
ReplyDeleteIn his Nomination Hearing Statement, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, retired General and former Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis noted that “Civilian control of the military is a fundamental tenet of the American military tradition.”
The "rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces," including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (e.g., Article 88 (Contempt Toward Officials), Article 134 (Disloyal Statements), Article 94 (sedition), et al.) and General Regulations (e.g., Department of Defense Directive(s) (DoDD)), reinforce this fundamental tenet.
Delineating between acceptable and unacceptable political activities by members of the Armed Forces is an extension of reinforcing "civilian control of the military." DoDD 1344.10 (Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces), establishes the Department of Defense policy on political activities of members of the Armed Forces.
The Directive is rife with prohibitions on service-members participating in partisan political events while in uniform.
Despite the long list of do's and don'ts, the Directive also includes a catch-all provision, which states, "Activities not expressly prohibited may be contrary to the spirit and intent of this Directive. Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense […] or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided.”
Finally, Enclosure 3 of the Directive states, "Members of the Armed Forces on active duty engaging in permissible political activities shall avoid any outside activities that may be prejudicial to the performance of military duties or likely to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.”
According to video footage, Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Launch/Recovery) 2nd Class (ABE2) Sarah J. Dudrey “gets out of a vehicle,” wearing the Navy Working Uniform (Type III), and approaches a group of citizens engaged in a “pro-America rally.” ABE2 Dudrey proceeds to “yell and get in the face of one […]” rally attendees. ABE2 Dudrey then screams, “Fuck Trump!” and “Fuck you!” at the crowd. ABE2 Dudrey also “deploys the double middle fingers at the crowd several times throughout the encounter.”
ABE2 Dudrey is wearing a uniform in violation of DoDD 1344.10, her actions are contrary to the spirit and intention of [the] directive, and even if participation in the event was permissible, her actions bring discredit on the Armed Forces.
Like Sergeant Gary Stein (Marine Corps Sergeant separated with Other Than Honorable discharge in 2012 for use of contemptuous language toward President Obama), ABE2 Dudrey’s conduct is “a significant departure from the conduct expected of a [Sailor] and [Petty Officer]." The Commanding Officer should notify the Petty Officer of Administrative Separation Proceedings and his/her intent to recommend a service characterization of “Other Than Honorable.”