Google

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Represented Cadet Webster Smith

(Above Ronald C. Machen, a Partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door, was the Appellate Defense Counsel for Coast Guard Academy Cadet Webster Smith, the first cadet to be punished by court-martial at the Coast Guard Academy in 2006. Cadet Webster Smith is an African American Black.)



Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP

Labels:

Thursday, August 17, 2017

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. Remember Webster Smith

President Obama, Stand With Victims of Sexual Assault and Fix the Broken Military Justice System


Last December, President Obama gave military brass a year to "make significant improvements" when dealing with sexual assault. That deadline is nearly up, but we continue to see multiple scandals, shocking misconduct and criminal actions that have been inappropriately handled by military leadership, or simply swept under the rug.
Today, I sent President Obama the open letter below.
***
Dear Mr. President,
In a speech you gave in May 2013, you said, "For those who are in uniform who've experienced sexual assault, I want them to hear directly from their commander in chief that I've got their backs."
The time has come for you to make good on your word.
Over the past year, the American public has been sickened by countless sexual assault scandals in our Armed Forces. An Associated Press investigation this past February revealed that service members committing sexual assault were receiving no punishment and commanders were failing to prosecute sexual assault cases at U.S. Military bases in Japan. The AP "found the handling of allegations verged on the chaotic, with seemingly strong cases often reduced to lesser charges. In two rape cases, commanders overruled recommendations for a court-martial and dropped the charges instead." The investigation also found that, "Even when military authorities agreed a crime had been committed, the suspect was unlikely to serve time."
We have seen that commanders are either unwilling or unable to protect victims of rape and sexual assault in the military. Mr. President, we need to enact fundamental reform and fix our broken military justice system. Your rapists' boss should not decide whether to prosecute a sexual assault allegation, or handpick the jury for these sensitive cases.
More recently, we have seen scandals at both military bases and on military academy campuses.
In September 2014, an Army Staff Sergeant at Fort Leonard Wood was found guilty of four counts of sexual assault and six counts of abusive sexual contact. During sentencing testimony, one of his victims said that a Lieutenant Colonel had told her and other trainees not to report if they were sexually assaulted. "I have issues of trusting those who are in charge of me," she said, after being told, "not to make any more allegations." Another female service member testified under oath that she and others were told by their Sergeant Major that their company would not graduate "if any more sexual assault cases" were reported.
Just this past month, both ABC News and ESPN aired investigations into allegations of sexual violence involving members of the Air Force Academy football team, and what happened to those who tried to blow the whistle. Air Force investigator Special Agent (SA) Brandon Enos, and Eric Thomas, a cadet informant, were retaliated against after their work led to the first successful prosecutions of sexual assault at the Academy in over a decade. After helping to successfully prosecute the cases, SA Enos was transferred out of the academy and forced out of the Air Force. Cadet Thomas was expelled for actions related to the undercover work he did during the investigation.
Mr. President, these are only a few examples of over 30 scandals reported on by the media in recent months. And tragically there are so many others that never become public. Through our Pro Bono Legal Network, we continue to hear daily from victims who are facing retaliation for coming forward, and who are having their confidential therapy and counseling records handed over to their rapists in court. In the rare instance where a case does move forward to trial and there is a conviction, we have watched as perpetrators receive a slap on the wrist, while the victims struggle to recover and maintain their careers. By the Pentagon's own numbers, 60% of those female victims that have come forward experienced retaliation. These victims often tell us they feel betrayed, and wish they had never reported at all. It is clear that Pentagon leadership continues to treat this crisis as a public relations problem.
The cost to our nation and our brothers and sisters who pledged to protect our rights of equality and justice for all continues to accumulate. The suffering of these brave men and women is unimaginable for those of us who have not been subjected to this broken system.
As Commander-in-chief, you repealed the military's discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and praised the Department of Defense for lifting restrictions on women in combat roles. You said that both of these policy changes would strengthen our national security, increase military readiness, and, bring us closer to the principles of equality and fairness that define us as Americans.
Fixing the broken military justice system is another critical step in realizing those goals.
As the Commander-in-chief, you have the power to end this national disgrace. It is time that you took steps to do so. Service members deserve justice equal to the system afforded to the civilians they protect. A system based on evidence and the rule of law not a Commander's personal opinion.
Sincerely,

Nancy Parrish
President, Protect Our Defenders

Labels:

Sunday, May 22, 2016

The Case of Cadet Webster Smith, The Last Word; UCGC Vol. 02, Nr. 01

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Cadet-Webster-Smith-Last/dp/1533400806/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
Synopsis:


We, as Americans, cherish fairness. We like to believe that people are not punished or unjustly rewarded without justifiable cause. We like to dwell on parables of white virtue and black advancement culminating in the flowering of goodwill all around. Events sometimes force us to widen our gaze and focus on terrain we would rather not see. The 2006 court-martial of Cadet Webster Smith at the United States Coast Guard Academy did just that. The Webster Smith case was a litmus test for justice in America. Every once in a while a case comes along that puts our humanity as a people, and as Americans, on trial. Everything that we profess to stand for as Americans was on trial. Our sense of justice in America and particularly in the U.S. Military was on trial. This was no ordinary trial. Our humanity was on trial. Our system of justice was on trial. This case dissolved the deceptive façade and exposed certain moral deficiencies in our system of justice. This case alone puts the legitimacy of the entire military justice system at risk.
We now see that there is little or no justice in military justice. Any reasonable person who looks at this case or any other high profile military justice case would have to conclude that the Military Justice System is not designed to render justice. It is a system designed to punish. The entire courts-martial system, from Summary Court-martial to General Court-martial, has one specific purpose; that is to punish anyone who commits an offense against the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


This is intended to be the definitive word on the first and only court-martial of a United States Coast Guard Academy cadet. The Case of Cadet Webster Smith, The Last Word is written from the perspective of the accused, Cadet First Class Webster Smith. It is not written from the perspective of his accusers. A prior account of this case focused on the women involved. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Lady told the story of the court-martial from the perspective of the witnesses for the prosecution.
Why now? Well, there are several reasons. This Case is unique in that this has never happened before. No other Coast Guard Academy Cadet has ever been punished at a General Courts-martial. That is saying a lot for an institution that has been around since 1876.
Also, it has been ten years since the trial and conviction. An entire decade has passed. The sentence has been served. The Supreme Court Petition for A Writ of Certiorari has been denied. The Record is complete.
Cadet Smith was a senior when the trial began. He was within months of graduating from the Academy, but he was expelled. No Clemency was granted. His career was ruined. His life was irreparably harmed. For ten years he was required to register in the State of Texas as a Sexual offender. He married, had children, and for ten years he was not allowed to attend the birthday parties of his children.
This Case has been hotly debated in certain quarters. The Coast Guard has tried its best to forget that this court-martial ever occurred. However, I fear that this Case will be debated and talked about for years to come. Long after the political and social climates that gave rise to this Case have abated; cadets, officers, politicians  and parents will be discussing the Webster Smith Case.
What distinguishes this book from other books on the Case is that this book distinguishes how the Coast Guard Legal Officers and the senior Academy officers disposed of this case as opposed to other cases with similar fact patterns.  This Case will serve as a witness to an era in the United States Military and its Service Academies that was ripe with cultural and ethical upheavals, proceedings with plenty of due process and  little justice, sexual assaults in the military, retaliation against whistleblowers, mind blowing results, aggravation and frustration.  
The Case of Cadet Webster Smith, The Last Word
Title ID: 6293877
ISBN-13: 978-1533400802



The Case of Cadet Webster Smith, The Last Word
Unrestricted Coast Guard Chronicles Vol 02 Nr 01
BY_AUTHOR Judge London Steverson
ISBN-13: 978-1533400802
6" x 9" on WHITE Paper
(198 pages, Black & White)
15.24 x 22.86 cm
Interior: The Case of Cadet Webster Smith, The Last Word - updated version edited 2- formatted15Apr11.docx
Cover Finish: Glossy
Cover: cover-creator.pdf

The Case of Cadet Webster Smith, The Last Word
Title ID: 6293877
ISBN-13: 978-1533400802

Labels:

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Sexual Assault Charges Stigmatize Innocent Men

Men punished in sexual misconduct cases on college campuses are fighting back


Men punished for sexual misconduct in the wave of cases sweeping college campuses are fighting back against what they call unfair student disciplinary systems and publicity that threatens to shatter their reputations.
The current and former college students describe themselves as victims of false accusations amid a national campaign — led by the White House — to stamp out sexual violence on campuses. While the federal push to increase awareness of sexual assault is aimed at keeping students safe and holding the nation’s colleges and universities accountable, some of the accused say the pressure on their schools has led to an unfair tipping of the scales against them.

They fiercely dispute the validity of internal investigations that rely on a lower standard of proof for determining misconduct than what is required for a conviction of a sex crime. They also contest accounts circulating on campuses and the Internet that label them as sexual assailants or rapists.
Joshua Strange, 23, of Spartanburg, S.C., said he was stunned that Auburn University expelled him in 2012 for sexual misconduct even though an Alabama grand jury found insufficient evidence to prosecute him for a sex crime. The internal disciplinary proceeding began, he said, after an ex-girlfriend falsely accused him of sex assault.
A bipartisan group of senators announced the introduction of the Campus Safety and Accountability Act, designed to curb sexual assaults on college campuses and increase accountability and transparency. (AP)
“The way that universities are handling the entire situation is terrible,” Strange said. “It’s kind of a broken system.”
Strange, who graduated this year from the University of South Carolina Upstate, said he is speaking out in the hope of preventing future injustice.
“I want to make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else,” he said.
An Auburn spokesman declined to comment on Strange’s case, citing privacy laws. Bobby Woodard, Auburn’s associate provost and vice president for student affairs, said federal requirements from the U.S. Department of Education mandate that all public universities follow a process that differs from the judicial and law enforcement systems in many ways.
“Those requirements are very clear and come with severe penalties for noncompliance,” Woodard said. “We at Auburn take these requirements very seriously, and that is reflected in our Code of Student Discipline.”
A student at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, who was found responsible this year for sexual misconduct after an internal investigation he called biased, said: “I wasn’t given a fair trial or anything. It’s sad that this process can be abused and that the university can totally change somebody’s life, with very little evidence. . . . In the real world, rape and sexual assault are crimes punishable by going to jail — and rightfully so. Why is this left up to schools?”
Debate over campus sex assault has exploded as college students and officials nationwide confront questions about what constitutes consent for sex and what behavior fuels a culture that tolerates or trivializes rape. The issues play out in an arena of young people living on their own for the first time and learning to make choices when alcohol and drugs are often in the mix. When details of disputed sexual encounters are injected into that debate, especially those that identify the accused, the situation intensifies. Individual reputations can be torched.
National attention has focused mainly on accounts of students who have stepped forward in growing numbers to report sexual violence, most of them women. From 2009 to 2012, federal data show reports of forcible sex offenses on campuses rose from about 2,600 to more than 3,900, up 50 percent. The victims often say that campus judicial processes are skewed in favor of the accused, allowing sex crimes to be hidden, victims’ voices silenced and campus reputations protected.
Often, those who file reports are seeking not to press criminal charges, but simply to push schools to enforce rules that guarantee an educational environment free from threat and intimidation. The federal government, citing a 1972 law called Title IX of The Civil Rights Act that bans gender discrimination, requires schools to resolve these reports promptly and equitably regardless of whether police become involved.
(NOTE: None of the Service Academies are named on the Department of Education's quickly growing list of colleges under investigation for mishandling cases of sexual assault. The five federal service academies -- the Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the Merchant Marine Academy, the Naval Academy, and the Military Academy in West Point -- are exempt from both Title IX and the Clery Act.
As both laws are increasingly used as the federal government's weapons of choice in combating campus sexual assaults, women's groups and victim advocates are questioning why the military academies continue to be exempt. END of NOTE)
In June, attorneys for a former Brown University student wrote the federal government to rebut “unsupported allegations of strangulation and violent rape” that they said had “forever tarnished” the name of their 21-year-old client. The man, who had been suspended for a year after the university found him responsible for sexual misconduct in connection with a 2013 encounter with a female student, was not charged with a crime. But he was identified in April in a student newspaper article about the controversy over whether his punishment was too lenient.
Soon afterward, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) weighed in on a cable television program, saying the woman in the case had been “brutally raped” and “nearly choked to death.” The man’s attorneys say he denies any violent behavior or sexual misconduct toward the woman. He ultimately withdrew from the Ivy League university in Rhode Island.
Under President Obama, the issue has drawn increased scrutiny. This year, Obama named a White House task force to study how to combat campus sex assault. His administration published a list of dozens of colleges under federal investigation for potentially mishandling sexual violence reports in violation of Title IX. The number listed, 55 on May 1, has grown to 76 as of Wednesday, August 20, 2014. The administration also told schools in 2011 that they should rely on a standard known as “preponderance of the evidence” to decide their sexual violence cases.
For a student to be found in violation of school rules under that standard, which is regularly used in civil litigation, the school essentially must determine that it is more likely than not that wrongdoing occurred. Previously, some schools had used a more demanding threshold of “clear and convincing evidence.” In criminal trials, the burden of proof for a guilty verdict is even higher — “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Which leads both sides to the same question: Are college investigations fair to accusers and accused?
Some lawmakers say survivors of sex assault too often face institutions that are indifferent or even hostile to their plight. They cite schools that report no sex offenses in a given year, an improbable statistic, they say, given studies showing that the issue touches huge numbers of undergraduate women.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is teaming with Gillibrand and others on a bipartisan bill that would require colleges to provide more support for students who report sex offenses.
McCaskill, a former prosecutor, said she wants as many cases as possible to be handled in criminal courts. The bill would require schools to coordinate with law enforcement agencies in solving sex crimes. But she said it is important to remember that college disciplinary inquiries do not put accused students in jeopardy of going to jail.
“I don’t think we are anywhere near a tipping point where the people accused of this are somehow being treated unfairly,” McCaskill said.
Many who have faced disciplinary sanctions disagree. They question the fairness of closed-door, internal proceedings that don’t follow the same rules of evidence and procedure as criminal courts. Usually, accused students must speak for themselves, with little or no help from an attorney. Some are filing lawsuits against schools.
Charles B. Wayne, a Washington attorney for a plaintiff in such a case in a 2011 trial in federal court involving Sewanee: The University of the South in Tennessee, said colleges are not equipped to adjudicate sex assault allegations.
“The people involved in the process are not properly trained and don’t have the necessary expertise,” Wayne said. “In addition, the assumption that a 19-year-old can defend himself without counsel against rape charges is absurd.
In June, debate flared over resolution of the Brandeis case, which involved two male students. One accused the other of various nonconsensual sexual acts during a relationship of nearly two years. The student found responsible for sexual misconduct and other offenses received a disciplinary warning and was ordered to complete an educational program on sex assault prevention. He was not charged with a crime.
His ex-boyfriend called the sanctions “laughable and ridiculous.” He posted on Facebook a May 30 university letter reporting the case’s outcome, arguing that the university was protecting an attacker.
“With this letter, they are telling our campus community: ‘Go ahead, rape somebody,’ ” he wrote. “ ‘Sexually harass them. Physically harm them. Ruin their life. We’ll give you a freebie.’ ”
The disciplined student denied any wrongdoing and said he worries that the episode could hurt his career prospects. He disputed the university’s investigation, which he said sought to weigh the credibility of differing accounts from the two men of situations that had no eyewitnesses.

Brandeis said privacy rules barred comment on the case. University spokeswoman Ellen de Graffenreid said Brandeis follows federal law and goes to great lengths to determine appropriate sanctions for misconduct. “This is a tremendous challenge, and unlikely to ever satisfy either participant unless the finding is either exoneration or expulsion,” she said in a written statement.
Many students and graduates — mostly women, some men — have come forward recently to provide public accounts as survivors of sexual violence. These advocates for victim rights have become influential on Capitol Hill and at the White House.
In July, three mothers announced an organization that will stand for due process in sexual misconduct cases on college campuses. Among the founders of Families Advocating for Campus Equality is Allison Strange, mother of the former Auburn student accused of misconduct, and Sherry Warner-Seefeld, mother of a man kicked out of the University of North Dakota in 2010 after what he called a false allegation of sex assault. The man was never charged with a crime. A year later, the university reversed its sanctions against him after an appeal pointed out that authorities had issued a warrant for the arrest of his accuser on suspicion of making a false report to police.
“We hope to reach out to people in positions of power to get their ear, to have them hear our stories, to convince them there is another aspect to the situation that needs to be considered,” Warner-Seefeld said.( )

Labels:

Friday, July 11, 2014

The Knee-Deep Sailor

Concerning,  An American Tragedy, The Webster Smith Case Is An American Tragedy

Sailor Of The Knee-Deep Navy, wrote:

Typical whining.

Webster Smith demonstrated by his actions that he was not fit to hold an officer's commission.

He put the gratification of his own urges ahead of his duty to his comrades. He is exactly the sort of person who should not be placed in a position of trust and authority.

This time it was banging other cadets after getting them drunk. What do you honestly think he would be doing when he had access to 18 year old female enlisted Coasties and he was their commander?
July 5, 2014

Dear Sailor Of The Knee-Deep Navy,
Thank you for your comment. You are more than kneee-deep in self-righteous ignorance now. You have never met Webster Smith, I would wager. Yet, you presume to judge his character and predict his future behavior.
 Based on what? What you read in the newspapers, or what you read in my book? Would you have made the same or similar predictions concerning General David Patraeus of Commander Dave Koss, or any of the other high ranking military officers who have been forced to resign from lofty positions recently because of sexual scandals?
You obviously read the internet news. I will not recite a list of names. Suffice it to say that General David Petraeus resigned as head of the CIA in the wake of revelations that he had carried on an extramarital affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell.  Commander Koss, voluntarily resigned after revelation that he allowed those around him to engage in politically incorrect hanky-panky.
Commander Koss was a 1991 Naval Academy graduate and veteran naval aviator and who has amassed more than 3,000 flight hours and 740 arrested landings on carriers, and garnered two awards for leadership during his career.
What a waste of talent. I believe that Webster Smith would have had a similarly distinguished career. But you believe that Webster Smith demonstrated by his actions that he was not fit to hold an officer's commission.
You speculate that he put the gratification of his own urges ahead of his duty to his comrades. And then you declare that he is exactly the sort of person who should not be placed in a position of trust and authority.
You are running over with stereotypical conjecture and devoid of any evidence of critical and objective thinking. I have met your type of mentality many times in my 24 year military career, and I am happy that there are not many like you left out there.
Well, sir, you are entitled to your own opinion; but, you are not entitled to make up your own facts. Nowhere was it reported that Webster Smith  was banging other cadets after getting them drunk. In all of the incidents reported in the case, it appeared that the cadets involved took advantage of lax Academy policies and Regulations concerning off base alcohol consumption.
I honestly think that Webster Smith would do the same as most college graduates once they past through the phase of teenage drinking and sexual exploration; that is, that he would move on to more mature and career enhancing pursuits.
Webster Smith was an exceptional cadet with a magnetic, and charming personality. He was a gifted man, who had risen above his circumstances. I suspect that as a commissioned officer he would continue to distinguish himself. I doubt that he would soil his record with any of the 18 year old female enlisted Coasties that I have seen. Not because they are not worth it, but because he is a better man than that and none of them could hold a candle his wife Lindsey.
Thank you for your opinion, but you should wade a bit further out into deeper water until it covers your brain, clears your vision, and refines your thinking.
 I hope I have not insulted you or burst your bubble. I respect your courage to come forward and take a position on the record.
 It is so hard to get an open and frank discussion of sensitive subjects in this politically correct age of left leaning liberalism.
You and I differ on our opinions of Webster Smith, but I believe we share old fashioned sentiments concerning duty, honor, patriotism; and, love of God and country.
We respect the sanctity of borders, languages and culture. I would like to hear from you again on this Blog.
So, I wish you fair skies, favorable winds, and a following sea out there on the Sea of Life. And remember, if you do not have a destination, there can be no favorable wind.
Judge L. Steverson, USALJ (Ret.); LCDR, USCG (Ret.)

Labels:

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

DHS Employees May Be Incompetent

One of the major reasons the Department of Homeland Security may be doomed is because the rank and file civil employees may be incompetent for the jobs they are trying to perform. The Senior Executive Staff was filled by professional job-hoppers from other agencies looking for a raise in pay and another career enhancing paragraph on their resume' or curriculum vitae. Today the DHS appears to be a bloated  and mismanaged bureaucracy of marginally qualified civil servants.
How were the top DHS positions filled? It was Ruling Class cronyism, favoritism, and nepotism. And in a few isolated cases, it may have been some affirmative action.
In the case of  Carmen H. Walker, Deputy Officer for EEO Programs, Office of Civil Rights and Liberties, it may have been a combination of all four, because she certainly was not qualified to render the decisions that she made. The most egregious was in the Case of Cadet Webster Smith.
http://voices.yahoo.com/why-believe-department-homeland-security-12669563.html?cat=9
It took a long time for the Dept Homeland Security, Office of Civil Rights to make a decision on the Webster Smith Discrimination Complaint. Webster Smith received a fatal blow from Ms Carmen Walker, the Deputy Officer for EEO Programs in the Department of Homeland Security. That decision was the death knell for Cadet Smith in his fight to get justice from the Coast Guard Academy and the Coast Guard?

Carmen H. Walker, Deputy Officer for EEO Programs, Office of Civil Rights and Liberties, in her 20 August 2007 letter said that because Webster Smith was court-martialed, he could not have been discriminated against, as a matter of law. Well, that was just flat out patently wrong. A court-martial does not bar a civil rights action. The court-martial was just one act in a chain of events, each of which constituted racial discrimination. The same set of facts could have given rise to actionable relief in different arenas. The several discriminatory actions taken against Webster Smith before he was even charged under the UCMJ were completely separate and distinct from any possible legal errors that were committed during the course of the court-martial.
Only the legal and procedural errors committed by the prosecution at trial were the subject of the appeal to the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals. The decision by Ms Walker was the dumbest decision I had ever seen, and the shortest. There was more meat on the shadow of the chicken that died of starvation than in her Report. There were no Findings of Fact. There were no Conclusions. There was no Rationale, or any reasoning whatsoever. There was nothing in the Final Report to show how she had arrived at her decision. No comparisons are made with any other cases or sets of facts.The Report and her decision simply defied reason and logic.

H. Jerry Jones, the Coast Guard’s director of the Office of Civil Rights in Washington D.C., authorized an inquiry Dec. 7, 2006  into whether former cadet first class Webster Smith was treated differently during the investigation into his case than others who had committed similar offenses.
After reviewing Smith's complaint, Jones dismissed 16 separate claims but authorized an investigation into the alleged inequity of treatment, headquarters spokesman Commander Jeff Carter said Dec. 15.
The Coast Guard hired JDG Associates Inc., a San Antonio-based consultant company that specializes in equal opportunity and civil rights issues, to examine the complaint, Carter said.
Carter explained that the Coast Guard does not maintain a large Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff and needed to hire the firm to ensure fairness.

Consistent with 29CFR 1614.107(b) when an agency dismisses some but not all of the claims in a complaint, the dismissed claims will not be investigated and the dismissal is not immediately appealable. The Department of Homeland Security was supposed to review them together with the Report of Investigation when it prepared the Final Agency Decision (FAD) on the accepted claims. It does not appear that Ms Walker did anything remotely comparable to that. She did not appear to have followed the letter or the spirit of the Regulation, 29CFR 1614.107(b).

Webster Smith has the right to request reconsideration of the FAD, including the dismissal determination if it had been sustained. It appears that Ms. Walker did that by default. Even though the dismissed claims were not processed as discreet and separate claims, the information regarding the dismissed claims were required to be used as evidence during the investigation of the accepted claim. Ms. Walker certainly could not have done that.
However, it is hard to tell just what Ms Walker did, if anything. She gave very few clues as to what she did, if she did anything. She could have flipped a coin, or rolled the dice for all we know. The FAD is brief and uninformative. It gives very little insight into the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of her mind.
Ms Carmen Walker was faced with a living room full of pink elephants. She chose to ignore all of them. She ignored what would have been obvious to even a child, and instead she grasped at two invisible straws. She chose to hang her hat on a technicality that has proven to be a gross embarrassment to her and the Department of Homeland Security.

It looked like Ms Walker had not looked at the complaint since it first had arrived on her desk. She must have noticed that the First Anniversary of the filing of the complaint was fast approaching. On 5 September, it would have been one year since the complaint had been filed. Ms Walker was required by Agency Regulations to provide Webster Smith with a copy of the investigative file, to notify him in writing that he had a right to request a hearing and a decision from an administrative law judge (ALJ) or to request an immediate final decision from the agency (29 CFR 1614.110). Ms Walker's Final Decision looked like nothing more than a half-hearted attempt to avoid letting the 360 day period run out without taking the required Agency action.

Oscar Wilde said that the easiest way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Ms Walker obviously believed the easiest way to get rid of a complaint was to simply say that it did not state a claim for which relief could be granted.

In her decision no evidence was evaluated. Statements were taken by the Investigating Officer, but no Facts were deduced. There were two apparently implied facts: One, that Webster Smith had been in the military; and, Two, that he had been court-martialed. From those two apparently implied facts, Ms Walker concludes that Webster Smith's Discrimination Complaint failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

If Webster Smith had been trying to overturn his court-martial conviction by filing a civil rights complaint, then he would not have filed an appeal to the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals. That is a separate action. It is designed to remedy the errors committed during and after the court-martial conviction.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has no jurisdiction to render a finding concerning whether Webster Smith was discriminated against when he was forcefully removed from Chase Hall at midnight in December 2005 by Coast Guard Intelligence, or when he was prevented from attending class, or when he was made to work on the boat docks in June 2006, or when he was forbidden to speak to any other classmates or cadets, or when he was forbidden to go within 100 yards of Chase Hall. Moreover, it was discrimination when a press release was distributed to the media with his photograph calling him a sexual predator and saying that his presence created an intimidating environment in Chase Hall. All of these prohibited actions occurred long before a charge sheet was drawn up, and well before a court-martial was convened and most certainly before a verdict was rendered. On these acts alone Webster Smith was discriminated against because of his race. These all occurred long before the court-martial and the other related acts occurred.

http://www.uscg.mil/Legal/cca/Court_of_Criminal_Appeals.asp
The Court of Military Review is a military forum and can only give a military remedy. It has no jurisdiction to give relief in the administrative, employment area.  The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, established under Article 66, UCMJ, by the Judge Advocate General is composed of the Chief Judge and not less than two additional appellate military judges. The judges may be commissioned officers or civilians. The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals is currently composed of six appellate judges organized in panels of three for consideration of referred cases. All but the Chief Judge have other primary duties, so that their service on the Court constitutes a collateral duty. In general, the Court reviews and acts on the records by affirming, reversing, or modifying in part the findings or sentence in each case of trial by court-martial in which the sentence, as approved, extends to death; dismissal of a commissioned officer or cadet; dishonorable discharge; bad conduct discharge; or confinement of one year or more. The Court also reviews other courts-martial with lesser sentences if the Judge Advocate General so directs. Also reviewed by the Court are petitions for extraordinary writs, petitions for new trial which have been referred to the Court, and appeals by the United States under Article 62, UCMJ.
That is why there is a civil rights complaint procedure. It is designed to address those areas where one has been treated differently than others based on his race, or sex.
In a perfect world, Ms Carmen H. Walker's actions alone would have done irreparable harm to an innocent man, but this is not a perfect world; and, Ms Walker may have had her strings pulled by others. Her actions and decisions had a snowball effect.


The Day newspaper in an article written by Jennifer Grogan on 9/11/2007 reported that “The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has ruled that Webster Smith was not discriminated against on the basis of his race when he was court-martialed for sexual assault last summer.” That was not true, nor was it correct.

She reported that “The Smiths declined to comment.” That was true; however, after the Smiths saw what she had written, they had plenty of comments. Mainly, they commented that Ms Grogan’s article was not correct. And they were right. The Day was forced to print a correction on 9/12/2207. As one might expect, the CORRECTION was not as conspicuous, nor as easy to locate as the first blatantly erroneous article. The damage had been done. As Webster Smith’s mother, Belinda, said”After the article has gone nationwide with the Associated Press, they quietly corrected the article but the damage was done.”
The Day, unlike the Navy Times, printed an article short on facts, but long on quotes from the people who had slandered Webster Smith, and who were trying to save face. The same people who tried to label Webster Smith as a sexual predator and released his private cadet photograph to the news media to be beamed around the world.
 At the Coast Guard Academy,” Chief Warrant Officer David M. French, an Academy spokesman, on Monday, 10 September, was quoted as saying “We feel the Department of Homeland Security's final decision on the civil rights complaint from Webster Smith validates the Coast Guard Academy's actions in this matter as appropriate.”

The CORRECTION buried in the B Section of The Day simply said “The U.S. Department of Homeland Security denied a discrimination claim filed by Webster Smith, a black man expelled from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy following his court-martial for sexual assault. The department ruled that the complaint was not filed in the appropriate forum.”

To deny a complaint and then to give 30 days for one to appeal the denial, is a long ways from saying there was no discrimination. There has not yet been a decision on the ultimate issue of whether Webster Smith was a victim of racial discrimination. Here it is eight years later and justice has not been done in the Webster Smith Case. If a few of the people in the Department of Homeland Security had been marginally qualified, or had simply performed their jobs properly, this might have ended differently. As it is, the Case of Webster Smith remains An American Tragedy.
 http://voices.yahoo.com/why-believe-department-homeland-security-12669563.html?cat=9

Labels:

Wednesday, February 05, 2014

More Cadets At Coast Guard Academy Under Investigation For Sexual Misconduct


New London — A cadet at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy (USCGA) is accused of breaking into a dorm room and sexually abusing another cadet.
An Academy spokesman said the alleged incident occurred in mid-September in the Chase Hall barracks.
The accused cadet is suspected of violating Articles 120, 130 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the military’s criminal code, which prohibit abusive sexual contact, housebreaking and unlawful entry. The charges were preferred, or formally initiated, and then served to the accused on Monday, February 3, 2014.
A military attorney, or judge advocate general, will now conduct an Article 32 investigation to determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant a court-martial.
The Academy would not identify the gender of either cadet involved. Capt. Eric C. Jones, the academy’s assistant superintendent, said that while Article 120 includes rape, in this case, “the alleged offense is not rape.”
The academy is sending the accused off campus to work at another Coast Guard unit while the process moves forward, Jones said in an interview Tuesday, February 4. The alleged victim is taking classes and using the support services on campus.
Rear Adm. Sandra L. Stosz, the academy superintendent, decided to proceed with the Article 32 investigation, Jones said.
This type of investigation has often been compared to grand jury proceedings in the civilian judicial system since both are concerned with determining whether there is sufficient probable cause to believe a crime was committed and whether the person accused of the crime committed it. The military investigation, however, is broader in scope and more protective of the accused.
Jones did not release the names of the cadets or many details about the alleged incident, citing the fact that the investigation is ongoing. The Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) conducted the initial investigation.
Jones added that the Academy is concerned with protecting the rights of the victim and the accused and ensuring the legal process is fair.
“I ask everyone to be patient and not to engage in supposition and rumors,” he said. “As soon as it gets to the point where it’s appropriate to release information directly to the public about the case, we’ll be ready to do that.” An Article 32 hearing is a public hearing.
The only cadet ever court-martialed at the Coast Guard Academy was tried on sexual assault charges in 2006. Webster M. Smith was convicted on extortion, sodomy and indecent-assault charges and acquitted of rape.
(The Webster Smith Case was appealed all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. It is fully documented in a book entitled "Conduct Unbecoming An Officer and a Lady" available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-Conviction/dp/1460978021 )
The Article 32 investigating officer (IO) in this case could recommend that the alleged offenses be dismissed, dealt with administratively, or referred for trial by court-martial. Stosz, as the convening authority, will decide which path to take.
Jones said he is hoping for a decision within one to three months, but there are legal processes that could extend that timeline. (By Jennifer McDermott)
j.mcdermott@theday.com
(CGA cadet accused of sexually abusing another cadet,McDermott J.,The Day, Military News, Feb 05, 2014) 
(ADDITIONAL EXPLANATORY INFORMATION)

Note: As part of the FY 2006 Military Authorization Act, Congress amended Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), effective for offenses occurring on and after October 1, 2007. Article 120 was formerly known as "Rape and carnal knowledge," but is now entitled "Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct."
The new Article 120 creates 36 offenses. These 36 offenses replace those offenses under the former Article 120 and others that used to be MCM offenses under Article 134 (the "General" Article).
The new Article 120 replaces the following Article 134 offenses:
The UCMJ change also amends two Article 134 offenses:
(1) Indecent language communicated to another - other than when communicated in the presence of a child - remains punishable under Article 134. If the language was communicated in the presence of a child, then it is an Article 120 offense.
(2) Pandering (having someone commit an act of prostitution) is still an offense under Article 134, but if the pandering is "compelled," it becomes an Article 120 offense.

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
Rape
By using force: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by using force against that other person.
By causing grievous bodily harm: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by causing grievous bodily harm to any person.
By using threats or placing in fear: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.
By rendering another unconscious: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by rendering that other person unconscious.
By administration of drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance:
    (i) That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by administering to that other person a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance;
    (ii) That the accused administered the drug, intoxicant or other similar substance by force or threat of force or without the knowledge or permission of that other person; and
    (iii) That, as a result, that other person's ability to appraise or control conduct was substantially impaired.
Aggravated sexual assault
By using threats or placing in fear:
    (i) That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act; and
    (ii) That the accused did so by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person would be subjected to bodily harm or other harm (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person would be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping).
By causing bodily harm:
    (i) That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act; and
    (ii) That the accused did so by causing bodily harm to another person.
Upon a person substantially incapacitated or substantially incapable of appraising the act, declining participation, or communicating unwillingness:
    (i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with another person, who is of any age; and (Note: add one of the following elements)
    (ii) That the other person was substantially incapacitated;
    (iii) That the other person was substantially incapable of appraising the nature of the sexual act;
    (iv) That the other person was substantially incapable of declining participation in the sexual act; or
    (v) That the other person was substantially incapable of communicating unwillingness to engage in the sexual act.
Aggravated sexual contact
By using force:
    (i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or
    (ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and
    (iii) That the accused did so by using force against that other person.
By causing grievous bodily harm:
    (i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or
    (ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and
    (iii) That the accused did so by causing grievous bodily harm to any person.
By using threats or placing in fear:
    (i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or
    (ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and
    (iii) That the accused did so by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.
By rendering another unconscious:
    (i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or
    (ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and
    (iii) That the accused did so by rendering that other person unconscious.
By administration of drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance:
    (i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or
    (ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and
    (iii) (a) That the accused did so by administering to that other person a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance;
    (b) That the accused administered the drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance by force or threat of force or without the knowledge or permission of that other person; and
    (c) That, as a result, that other person's ability to appraise or control conduct was substantially impaired.
Abusive sexual contact
By using threats or placing in fear:
    (i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or
    (ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and
    (iii) That the accused did so by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person would be subjected to bodily harm or other harm (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person would be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping).
By causing bodily harm:
    (i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or
    (ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and
    (iii) That the accused did so by causing bodily harm to another person.
    (i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or
    (ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and (Note: add one of the following elements)
    (iii) That the other person was substantially incapacitated;
    (iv) That the other person was substantially incapable of appraising the nature of the sexual contact;
    (v) That the other person was substantially incapable of declining participation in the sexual contact; or
    (vi) That the other person was substantially incapable of communicating unwillingness to engage in the sexual contact.
Wrongful sexual contact
    (a) That the accused had sexual contact with another person;
    (b) That the accused did so without that other person's permission; and
    (c) That the accused had no legal justification or lawful authorization for that sexual contact.
     Upon a person substantially incapacitated or substantially incapable of appraising the act, declining participation, or communicating unwillingness:
Indecent act
    (a) That the accused engaged in certain conduct; and
    (b) That the conduct was indecent conduct.
Indecent exposure
    (a) That the accused exposed his or her genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple;
    (b) That the accused's exposure was in an indecent manner;
    (c) That the exposure occurred in a place where the conduct involved could reasonably be expected to be viewed by people other than the accused's family or household; and
    (d) That the exposure was intentional.
Aggravated sexual abuse of a child
    (a) That the accused engaged in a lewd act; and
    (b) That the act was committed with a child who has not attained the age of 16 years.
Forcible pandering
    (a) That the accused compelled a certain person to engage in an act of prostitution; and
    (b) That the accused directed another person to said person, who then engaged in an act of prostitution.
Note: If the act of prostitution was not compelled, but "the accused induced, enticed, or procured a certain person to engage in an act of sexual intercourse for hire and reward with a person to be directed to said person by the accused," see Article 134.

DEFINITIONS
Sexual act. The term 'sexual act' means --
(A) contact between the penis and the vulva, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the genital opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
Sexual contact. The term 'sexual contact' means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of another person, or intentionally causing another person to touch, either directly or through the clothing, the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
Grievous bodily harm. The term 'grievous bodily harm' means serious bodily injury. It includes fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to internal organs, and other severe bodily injuries. It does not include minor injuries such as a black eye or a bloody nose. It is the same level of injury as in Article 128, and a lesser degree of injury than in section 2246(4) of title 18.

Dangerous weapon or object. The term 'dangerous weapon or object' means --
(A) any firearm, loaded or not, and whether operable or not;
(B) any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that in the manner it is used, or is intended to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or grievous bodily harm; or
(C) any object fashioned or utilized in such a manner as to lead the victim under the circumstances to reasonably believe it to be capable of producing death or grievous bodily harm.
Force. The term 'force' means action to compel submission of another or to overcome or prevent another's resistance by --
(A) the use or display of a dangerous weapon or object;
(B) the suggestion of possession of a dangerous weapon or object that is used in a manner to cause another to believe it is a dangerous weapon or object; or
(C) physical violence, strength, power, or restraint applied to another person, sufficient that the other person could not avoid or escape the sexual conduct.

Threatening or placing that other person in fear.The term 'threatening or placing that other person in fear' for the charge of 'rape' or the charge of 'aggravated sexual contact' means a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that non-compliance will result in the victim or another person being subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.
Threatening or placing that other person in fear. In general. The term 'threatening or placing that other person in fear' for the charge of 'aggravated sexual assault, or the charge of 'abusive sexual contact' means a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that noncompliance will result in the victim or another being subjected to a lesser degree of harm than death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.
Inclusions. Such lesser degree of harm includes --
    (i) physical injury to another person or to another person's property; or
    (ii) a threat --
    (I) to accuse any person of a crime;
    (II) to expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
    (III) through the use or abuse of military position, rank, or authority, to affect or threaten to affect, either positively or negatively, the military career of some person.
Bodily harm. The term 'bodily harm' means any offensive touching of another, however slight.
Child. The term 'child' means any person who has not attained the age of 16 years.
Lewd act. The term 'lewd act' means --
(A) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person, or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(B) intentionally causing another person to touch, not through the clothing, the genitalia of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate or degrade any person, or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
 Indecent liberty. The term 'indecent liberty' means indecent conduct, but physical contact is not required. It includes one who with the requisite intent exposes one's genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple to a child. An indecent liberty may consist of communication of indecent language as long as the communication is made in the physical presence of the child. If words designed to excite sexual desire are spoken to a child, or a child is exposed to or involved in sexual conduct, it is an indecent liberty; the child's consent is not relevant.
Indecent conduct. The term 'indecent conduct' means that form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or deprave morals with respect to sexual relations. Indecent conduct includes observing, or making a videotape, photograph, motion picture, print, negative, slide, or other mechanically, electronically, or chemically reproduced visual material, without another person's consent, and contrary to that other person's reasonable expectation of privacy, of --
(A) that other person's genitalia, anus, or buttocks, or (if that other person is female) that person's areola or nipple; or
(B) that other person while that other person is engaged in a sexual act, sodomy (under Article 125 ), or sexual contact.
Act of prostitution. The term 'act of prostitution' means a sexual act, sexual contact, or lewd act for the purpose of receiving money or other compensation.
Consent. The term 'consent' means words or overt acts indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the accused's use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the sexual conduct at issue shall not constitute consent. A person cannot consent to sexual activity if --
(A) under 16 years of age; or
(B) substantially incapable of --
(i) appraising the nature of the sexual conduct at issue due to --
(I) mental impairment or unconsciousness resulting from consumption of alcohol, drugs, a similar substance, or otherwise; or
(II) mental disease or defect which renders the person unable to understand the nature of the sexual conduct at issue;
(ii) physically declining participation in the sexual conduct at issue; or

(iii) physically communicating unwillingness to engage in the sexual conduct at issue.
Mistake of fact as to consent. The term 'mistake of fact as to consent' means the accused held, as a result of ignorance or mistake, an incorrect belief that the other person engaging in the sexual conduct consented. The ignorance or mistake must have existed in the mind of the accused and must have been reasonable under all the circumstances. To be reasonable the ignorance or mistake must have been based on information, or lack of it, which would indicate to a reasonable person that the other person consented. Additionally, the ignorance or mistake cannot be based on the negligent failure to discover the true facts. Negligence is the absence of due care. Due care is what a reasonably careful person would do under the same or similar circumstances. The accused's state of intoxication, if any, at the time of the offense is not relevant to mistake of fact. A mistaken belief that the other person consented must be that which a reasonably careful, ordinary, prudent, sober adult would have had under the circumstances at the time of the offense.

MAXIMUM PUNISHMENTS
Rape and Rape of a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, death or confinement for Life, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Aggravated Sexual Assault: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 30 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 20 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 20 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Aggravated Sexual Contact:Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 20 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 20 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Abusive Sexual Contact with a Child:Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 15 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Indecent Liberty with a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 15 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Abusive Sexual Contact: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 7 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Indecent Act: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 5 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Forcible Pandering:Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 5 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Wrongful Sexual Contact:Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 1 yr, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Indecent Exposure: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 1 yr, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Article 130—Housebreaking

Text.
“Any person subject to this chapter who unlawfully enters the building or structure of another with intent to commit a criminal offense therein is guilty of housebreaking and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused unlawfully entered a certain building or structure of a certain other person; and
(2) That the unlawful entry was made with the intent to commit a criminal offense therein.
Explanation.
(1) Scope of offense. The offense of housebreaking is broader than burglary in that the place entered is not required to be a dwelling house; it is not necessary that the place be occupied; it is not essential that there be a breaking; the entry may be either in the night or in the daytime; and the intent need not be to commit one of the offenses made punishable under Articles 118 through 128.
(2) Intent. The intent to commit some criminal offense is an essential element of housebreaking and must be alleged and proved to support a conviction of this offense. If, after the entry the accused committed a criminal offense inside the building or structure, it may be inferred that the accused in-tended to commit that offense at the time of the entry.
(3) Criminal offense. Any act or omission which is punishable by courts-martial, except an act or omission constituting a purely military offense, is a “criminal offense.”
(4) Building, structure. “Building” includes a room, shop, store, office, or apartment in a building. “Structure” refers only to those structures which are in the nature of a building or dwelling. Examples of these structures are a stateroom, hold, or other compartment of a vessel, an inhabitable trailer, an in-closed truck or freight car, a tent, and a houseboat. It is not necessary that the building or structure be in use at the time of the entry.
(5) Entry. See paragraph 55c(3).
(6) Separate offense. If the evidence warrants, the intended offense in the housebreaking specification may be separately charged.
Lesser included offenses.
(1) Article 134—unlawful entry
(2) Article 80—attempts
Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

UCMJ Article 134—General article

“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”

Elements.
The proof required for conviction of an offense under Article 134 depends upon the nature of the misconduct charged. If the conduct is punished as a crime or offense not capital, the proof must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the applicable law. If the conduct is punished as a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, then the following proof is required:
    (1) That the accused did or failed to do certain acts; and
    (2) That, under the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Explanation.
(1) In general. Article 134 makes punishable acts in three categories of offenses not specifically covered in any other article of the code. These are referred to as “clauses 1, 2, and 3” of Article 134. Clause 1 offenses involve disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. Clause 2 offenses involve conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Clause 3 offenses involve noncapital crimes or offenses which violate Federal law including law made applicable through the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act, see subsection (4) below. If any conduct of this nature is specifically made punishable by another article of the code, it must be charged as a violation of that article. See subparagraph (5)(a) below. How-ever, see paragraph 59c for offenses committed by commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen.
(2) Disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces (clause 1).
    (a) To the prejudice of good order and discipline. “To the prejudice of good order and discipline” refers only to acts directly prejudicial to good order and discipline and not to acts which are preju dicial only in a remote or indirect sense. Almost any irregular or improper act on the part of a member of the military service could be regarded as prejudicial in some indirect or remote sense; however, this article does not include these distant effects. It is con-fined to cases in which the prejudice is reasonably direct and palpable. An act in violation of a local civil law or of a foreign law may be punished if it constitutes a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. However, see R.C.M. 203concerning subject-matter jurisdiction.
    (b) Breach of custom of the service. A breach of a custom of the service may result in a violation of clause 1 of Article 134. In its legal sense, “custom” means more than a method of procedure or a mode of conduct or behavior which is merely of frequent or usual occurrence. Custom arises out of long established practices which by common usage have attained the force of law in the military or other community affected by them. No custom may be contrary to existing law or regulation. A custom which has not been adopted by existing statute or regulation ceases to exist when its observance has been generally abandoned. Many customs of the service are now set forth in regulations of the vari ous armed forces. Violations of these customs should be charged under Article 92 as violations of the regulations in which they appear if the regulation is punitive. See paragraph 16c.
(3) Conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (clause 2). “Discredit” means to injure the reputation of. This clause of Article 134 makes punishable conduct which has a tendency to bring the service into disrepute or which tends to lower it in public esteem. Acts in violation of a local civil law or a foreign law may be punished if they are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. However, see R.C.M. 203 concerning subject-matter jurisdiction.

(4) Crimes and offenses not capital (clause 3).
    (a) In general. State and foreign laws are not included within the crimes and offenses not capital referred to in this clause of Article 134 and violations thereof may not be prosecuted as such except when State law becomes Federal law of local application under section 13 of title 18 of the United States Code(Federal Assimilative Crimes Act— see subparagraph (4) (c) below). For the purpose of court-martial jurisdiction, the laws which may be applied under clause 3 of Article 134 are divided into two groups: crimes and offenses of unlimited application (crimes which are punishable regardless where they may be committed), and crimes and offenses of local application (crimes which are punishable only if committed in a reas of federal jurisdiction).
(b) Crimes and offenses of unlimited application. Certain noncapital crimes and offenses prohibited by the United States Code are made applicable under clause 3 of Article 134 to all persons subject to the code regardless where the wrongful act or omission occurred. Examples include: counterfeiting ( 18 U.S.C. § 471), and various frauds against the Government not covered by Article 132.
(c) Crimes and offenses of local application.
    (i) In general. A person subject to the code may not be punished under clause 3 of Article 134 for an offense that occurred in a place where the law in question did not apply. For example, a person may not be punished under clause 3 of Article 134 when the act occurred in a foreign country merely because that act would have been an offense under the United States Code had the act occurred in the United States. Regardless where committed, such an act might be punishable under clauses 1 or 2 of Article 134. There are two types of congressional enactments of local application: specific federal statutes (defining particular crimes), and a general federal statute, the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act (which adopts certain state criminal laws). 
(5) Limitations on Article 134.
    (a) Preemption doctrine. The preemption doctrine prohibits application of Article 134 to conduct covered by Articles 80 through 132. For example, larceny is covered in Article 121, and if an element of that offense is lacking—for example, intent— there can be no larceny or larceny-type offense, either under Article 121 or, because of preemption, under Article 134. Article 134 cannot be used to create a new kind of larceny offense, one without the required intent, where Congress has already set the minimum requirements for such an offense in Article 121. 
     
(b) Capital offense. A capital offense may not be tried under Article 134.
 Above Information from Manual for Court Martial.
     

          Labels: