Food for thought on Administrative Discharges

 Rebecca L. Feldmann, Bad Paper & the Problem with Moral Turpitude in the VA Context. 90 Mo. L. Rev. 57 (2025).

Moral turpitude serves as a way to exclude former servicemembers from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) definition of a veteran. As a result, servicemembers who commit offenses deemed morally turpitudinous cannot access VA disability compensation, burial in a VA cemetery, education benefits, many types of VA healthcare, or any other of the multitude of benefits offered by the VA. This issue is especially problematic for veterans with “bad paper”—i.e., those with a less than fully honorable discharge—whose underlying misconduct is related to post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), a traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), or another mental health condition.

This Article explores the problems of using “moral turpitude” to bar former servicemembers, particularly those with an Other Than Honorable (“OTH”) discharge, from VA benefits. It builds upon and supports petitions by a coalition of veterans’ advocates for the VA to amend its regulation to align with congressional intent. The Article expands this discussion by analyzing more recent decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which demonstrate inconsistent results stemming from the term’s inherently vague nature combined with a lack of a cohesive framework or any precedential guidance for resolving whether a particular offense involves moral turpitude. The Article also addresses the final rule issued by the VA in April 2024, explores the failuresto resolve the concerns at the heart of the petition for rulemaking, and discusses how 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d) continues to inject unnecessary confusion into the adjudication of veterans’ benefits, particularly for veterans with an OTH discharge. In concluding, the Article proposes steps that Congress or veterans’ advocates can take to resolve the confusion and arbitrariness that has existed for decades surrounding this bar to VA benefits.

Action On Armed Violence reports on UK MJ

Edward Lander and Iain Overton, UK military justice: a system in crisis? AOAV, 29 April 2025.

The UK military justice system, designed to uphold discipline and address service-specific offences, faces significant challenges, undermining its ability to ensure accountability and fairness for both personnel and civilians. Decades of failed investigations, reduced charges, and lenient sentencing have fostered a system rife with inefficiencies and inequities.

Key findings from Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) reveal an 18% lower conviction rate in military courts compared to civilian courts, with rape conviction rates three times lower. Downgrading of charges—often substituting criminal offences with disciplinary actions—further erodes trust, as does a culture of secrecy and reluctance to report crimes within the ranks. Insufficient evidence frequently hampers court martial proceedings, reflecting both investigative inadequacies and a lack of resources in the military police, whose staffing has fallen 17% in the past decade.

The system also struggles with political interference, delays, and a failure to hold senior personnel accountable. High-profile cases of misconduct, such as those involving UK Special Forces in Afghanistan and systemic abuses in Kenya, expose a troubling pattern of obfuscation and inaction at the highest levels. Victims often face years of waiting with limited support, while those accused endure prolonged investigations with devastating personal consequences.

Recommendations include transferring serious offences like rape to civilian courts, enhancing military police training, ensuring independence in investigations, and holding senior officers accountable. Reform is essential to restore trust, deliver justice, and align the military’s judicial processes with the values it aims to protect worldwide.

What can a military union do?

That is the question before South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal in a case that is now under submission. Details can be found here. Excerpt:

Earlier the high court held in favour of Sandu [the South African National Defence Union] on all the issues.

These include the banning of demonstrations, presenting of petitions and a military union's right to affiliate to a union federations, and those preventing unions representing members during grievances and disciplinary proceedings.

Co-counsel for Sandu, Matthew Chaskalson, submitted these were among the core functions of a union.

Chaskalson submitted that whatever threat to discipline the defence force might see in regard to affiliation, as the defence force contended, was not well founded.

"It's not justifiable to ban this."

On Tuesday, questions on the justification of a "powerful body within the military outside of military command" was also raised by the bench in relation to affiliation.

Concerns related to conflict of interest by soldiers when they were called by the President for duty during civil unrest situations, which could be supported by other trade federations.

Russian Military Court Sends Russian General To Penal Colony

Ah, strange bedfellows indeed. You know times are indeed "interesting" when a Russian ultranationalist pro-war blogger with three million followers laments Russia's lack of rule of law -- not because of war crimes committed by Russian service members in Ukraine; not due to Russia's violation of the United Nation's Charter in its unlawful war of aggression; and not due to the myriad disappearances and murders that the Russian State has been alleged to have orchestrated over the years.

Nope, this Russian ultranationalist finally misses the good 'ole rule of law because his favorite Russian general has just been sentenced to five years in a Russian penal colony by a Russian military court (hence the nexus to this Global Military Justice Reform site). This general's conviction on corruption charges, per this article, appears to be  retaliation for his criticism of the top Russian brass (and/or perhap his popularity amongst his troops threatens those in power). 

May this case be a reminder that ALL military courts -- by definition those  part of a military justice system under the command and control of the military organization they are nested within, such as in the United States, which operates military courts unworthy of U.S. service members due to the system's lack of independence -- are uniquely susceptible (and frankly, seemingly prone) to transformation to vehicles of persecution instead of legitimate prosecution. 

Government brief in opposition to certiorari in "short-martial" case

The Solicitor General's brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari in Wheeler v. United States, No. 24-678, can be found here.

Betting here in the glass-enclosed newsroom high above Global Military Justice Reform Plaza is that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari--and affirm.