Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
The unprofessional relationship was proven, the assault as you said was/is suspected.

Other than the PTA ... nope.

This is the second time you say the general lost two grades for sexual assault, he didn't ... it was the frat, adultery etc. If the assault could be proven ... as I said in the other thread ...

If the assault could have been proven I wish they would have thrown the book at him. I don't know if the the max punishment (which for rape in the UCMJ is death) was appropriate since significant portions of the report were redacted so I don't have all the particulars, but I did read what was available.

So do I support the policy? Which one?

That an officer can be reduced and retire at the last grade satisfactorily held? Yes, absolutely.

That all personnel should be held accountable, regardless of rank? Yes, absolutely.

That we have laws for people, in the military the UCMJ? Yes, absolutely.

That we afford people accused of violating those laws due process? Yes, absolutely.

What I do not support is punishing someone based on rumor or suspicion vice proof (going back to that sexual assault ... it wasn't proven), because ... where do you stop? While NJP is a lower burden of proof, there still is a burden of proof beyond a simple accusation (a preponderance of the evidence), and the accused (unless on sea duty) has the option to refuse NJP and be tried by a court martial (where the burden is higher -- beyond a reasonable doubt). It isn't because I hope to run for office or to avoid getting bitten in the ass, I believe in due process for everyone ... an E1 Private and a 4-star General, you seem to be arguing that the system punish someone for a crime that wasn't proven, at least for someone more senior, which I don't believe in.

I don't think we make the burden of proof for a crime less for either a Private or General, but what can be done to the General (or 2dLt) is a charge under the loose requirements of Art. 133 (Conduct Unbecoming) which is unique to officers and sometimes (because of due process and protections for the accused) the only thing that we can pin to someone, but sufficient to remove them from service.

In the case of MGen Lichte, based on what could be proven ... they maxed him out ... which is the same max that was delivered to the LTG who had issues with the GTC, and also a false official statement and conduct unbecoming an officer issues.
But still no opinion of the policy...just reaffirmation...

Let's be honest about the sexual assault that wasn't a sexual assault...there's no chance he loses rank if there's no accusation of sexual assault. Even though the official charges were the "unbecoming..." and "unprofessional..." charges there's no chance that if those are the ONLY accusations that it goes anywhere.

Same goes for the GTC case with false statements...that's simply an additional charge they can throw on. (If there is no dumb ass charge for misusing the card then there would be no false statement made. Now tell me "but there was a charge"...yes yes, I know...)...like the adultery charge (which is stupid as hell, also...if everyone was consenting then give it a rest).